Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
720 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Darling! Moses is on the phone....
ggallegosgroupuk21 April 2017
What, in God's name, was this? Everything reeks of commercial operation without any real thought behind it. Of all the puzzling elements in this bizarre epic, the most inexplicable is Christian Bale as Moses. Not the choice of Christian Bale - commercial operation, remember - no, that I understand, what's inexplicable is his performance. We know now Christian Bale is a great actor. Great. The Fighter alone puts him right up there with some of the best of his generation so why then he's so bad, but so bad here. His Moses is absent. Not a moment of truth, not a moment of real connection. Was he a hostage, performing against his will? That's what I felt, that he didn't want to be there and that alone made me watch the whole film with disdain. What a disheartening experience. I give it a 2 and not a 1 out of respect for the crew, because their work is real and present on the screen.
125 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What's up with Hollywood?
vividhkothari5 December 2014
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?
618 out of 783 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Terrible Schlock
Segarr9 December 2014
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.
434 out of 622 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Christian humble?
harrypaulson-11126 December 2014
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.
41 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Exodus retold, an Epic's epic failure
sagarika-ravulapati11 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
First, I have a question about the title itself, the movie clearly claims to be based out of the bible. So, who are the Gods here, isn't it one God who brought His people out of Egypt which the movie boasts about also? Has the director taken the words of Pharaoh too seriously when he says I am God?

Let alone the title,as I walked into the theater late, I only saw Christian Bale saving some kingly dressed Egyptian. And the next thing I see the Egyptian man calls him Moses. Where is this coming from? Sure, Moses lived in the palace raised by the Pharaoh's daughter but when did he save Pharaoh's son in the war? Moses, the author of Exodus himself would have remembered to give himself that credit if he did that, wouldn't he?

Well, the director tries to make a point about the 'valiant' Moses, But later you find it is little too much exaggeration of thought to give screen time of around 20 minutes to the whole act of Moses discovering about his nationality, when Bible just conveys that he already knew he is a Hebrew.Absolutely ridiculous thing is to use Ben Kingsley as Nun, who is the father of Joshua for the dramatic effect of letting the cat out of the bag that Moses is a Hebrew. All this successfully blurs the actual details of the character of Moses through the way he was raised. Truth about his nationality and race helped him choose the side and kill the Egyptian in the first instance he saw his people troubled. That is what truth does; it will aid you in judgment.

The most disappointing scene in the movie has not yet come until you see a bush burning and a small boy saying that he is the I AM. I was looking forward to this entire dialog between God and Moses but apparently this Moses was sinking in mud hit by stones and he wakes up getting convinced by his wife that it is all in his head. Yeah, as this Moses doesn't go with a staff on to this mountain like the one guarding the sheep, also misses God's instruction to use staff to work wonders to convince his people.

I know, now we just wait for him to get back to Egypt and set things in action, meet Aaron and negotiate with Pharaoh regarding the release of his people. But you will be shocked that this Moses is neither the one who stammers with tongue nor with his sword. He secretly ambushes Pharaoh in his palace and threatens him in the name of God.For whatever reasons, Moses here trains an army of handful of Israelite men the basics of archery, for what? to take down the entire Egyptian army? I doubt that! To deal with this adamant Moses, God says I will do my business, you can stop fighting, only to dampen the Moses's mighty spirit to save his own people.

I can't believe they showed the plagues to have had fueled from the river full of crazy crocodiles eating 10 men!! Whatever the director thought of the original story of Aaron using his staff on the river to change it into blood, he came up with this idiotic picture in his head. And all the other plagues are the effect of this blood plague! Clearly there was no effort made while narrating this story to convey that Hebrew people are not being affected by the plagues. On top of it, Moses is telling God to fall in line with the story by saying that everyone is getting affected by these bloody plagues can you like stop?

Thanks to the disobedient Moses, it helped the director not convey God's repeated messages to Pharaoh, warning him to leave Israelites from his country. Good God! Somehow, Moses cryptically warns Pharaoh that his son might die that night if he wouldn't let his people out of country by night. I couldn't stop wondering if it not for the actual Pharaoh, this Pharaoh would have listened if Moses just spoke the words as absolute God's word.

By now, we should know what to expect from this Moses, but I was totally unmoved by his concern for lambs over the preparation for Passover. We see that the movie might end soon when Hebrew people start to leave Egypt with anticipation about the great Red sea scene. Another disappointment greets us there as well, no amount of joy is shown on the faces of people who have been slaves for 400 years once they got freedom, I am sure the director very well knows how America celebrates 4th of July!

I think I need to let go of some more failures of Moses here and just come to the end, yeah there is no parting of the red sea! You will be aghast to discover the reason for water to recede, Moses flinging his sword into the water! Moses has absolutely no clue where he is going, no God to talk to him. Pharaoh hasn't lost the lead, follows him soon. Given the confused emotions of Moses about his love for his Pharaoh Brother putting him in turmoil, fighting his own personal battles he waits and waits to be drowned in the flood. Oh no, they didn't kill him and our hero comes out of the sea to the side where Hebrews are waiting. Now, who led who exactly! Sigh!!

The onward journey began, and there comes the Mt Sinai, God called Moses to write 10 commandments, the futility of the movie became crystal clear as God serves him tea and asks him to write a commandment if he agrees on the validity of that particular command.

In conclusion, it's a story told but the truth left untold!
268 out of 397 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bland, lazy and arrogant
charitable-184-23625412 December 2014
We all know Scott can bring a vision to the screen with ease, create a sweeping vista and bring a dream to life. In part he does that here; a version of ancient Egypt is brought to life, superficially it seems right, until you realise this is all this movie has going for it.

Its empty, like a chocolate cake with sawdust inside. I feel cheated, extremely disappointed, and unenlightened.

Apart from the incredibly distracting casting choices, we know ancient Egyptians were brown to dark brown, the costumes and setting just didn't ring true and continuously brought me out of the movie and into the increasingly monotonous script that lacked any originality, spark or wit.

Yes, this is straight by the numbers; even including a more 'scientific' approach to the story that I think was supposed to be clever or original, but just fell flat and drained even more life from the movie.

Performances I felt were very ordinary; Bale played his usual character role, serious faced throughout, as did Edgerton, although yet again and again I found distracting his manicured eyebrows and shaven head, clearly a poor attempt to look 'other', when his role should have clearly gone to another. The so called must have big names Scott whined of, such as Weaver, had hardly a word to say.

Its also overlong, or seems it. Large segments between set pieces drag on and on, you check your watch and instead of 30 minutes gone, you realise only 4 minutes have. This is nothing like gladiator. Scott has gotten old. Hes not going to get better.

Only watch if you like a biblical epic with no originality and dour presentation. Everyone else, save your cash and if you are tempted, don't bother with 3D.
202 out of 299 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Even at 3 hours 40 minutes, time flies by watching The 1956 Ten Commandments movie, and absolutely C r a w l s by watching this one...
jeffn713 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I could Not have been more disappointed in "Exodus Gods and Kings." It's impossible for me to not compare it with "The Ten Commandments" since it's exactly the same story, so here goes...

"The Ten Commandments" movie of 1956 at 3 hours and 40 minutes, with No CGI, and No battle scenes is easily 10 times more enjoyable than "Exodus Gods and Kings."

Every moment of "The Ten Commandments" is so captivating with top quality story, scripts, acting, directing, sets, costumes, visual effects, and music that time really flies by when watching it. "Exodus Gods and Kings," however, is so desperately dull, with horrible script, cheap looking sets, lack luster performances, I can honestly say that it's the worst movie I have seen in a very long time.

Even the music was forgettable (except when it sounded like the original "Stargate" movie soundtrack, which it did a lot of times).

And don't even get me started on the visual effects in "Exodus Gods and Kings." The plagues are done so well they're stomach churning, but they don't even happen in the way that the original Bible stories say they happened. But the ONE scene in the entire movie that's really spectacular CGI is directed so completely without thought that it makes no sense whatsoever...

SMALL SPOILER ALERT: The water in the Red Sea is rapidly receding to the right, sort of like what happens before a Tsunami. It only takes a few minutes for that area of the Red Sea to be shallow enough for the thousands of recently freed Hebrews to start walking across. This is disappointing as far as visuals go, but does make sense so far. Then just before the giant wave comes we see absolutely spectacular storm clouds and multiple tornadoes and waterspouts develop. These visual effects are some of the best ever in the history of CGI, but the tornadoes didn't actually do anything at all in this scene. They did not pull the water away in the first place, like the storm clouds created by God (or spaceships) did in "The Ten Commandments." They simply appeared in the distance for no reason, just before the huge Tsunami wave crashed down on Pharaoh's soldiers.

To show the outright sloppiness of this movie again, in scene after scene there are one or two guys spying on Moses, and nothing ever happens as a result. It's a big set up to a big nothing.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST: If you happen to be a fan of the "Ancient Aliens" show or believe in Hebrew Mysticism you will be sorely disappointed in "Exodus Gods and Kings." Mostly because, the only reason Moses sees a burning bush or talks to God the first time is that he just got conked on the head by a huge rock. Then, every time a miracle happens, this sassy little boy (who is just now angry at the Egyptian Pharaohs after 400 years of Hebrew enslavement) is the one doing the miracles, not even through Moses. Moses really does none of the miracles in this movie. He has a sword through most of it, and never even carries a staff.

In the Bible, when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai his face was shining. This is important no matter what your beliefs are. They at least touch on this in "The Ten Commandments" but in "Exodus Gods and Kings," the only thing that happens on Mt. Sinai is that the little boy dictates the ten commandments to Moses as he carves them onto the rock tablets. And they don't even show him actually saying any of them. He's just sitting there watching Moses work.

Finally, I have to say that it would have been very nice to actually see the Ark of the Covenant in a movie about Moses. Moses is shown riding with presumably the Ark in a basket on a veiled wagon, but still the only time in the history of the movies that we get to see the actual Ark is in an Indiana Jones movie, which is also easily 10 times better than "Exodus Gods and Kings."

So if you feel like seeing a Biblical movie or a movie about ancient Egypt, definitely buy or rent "The Ten Commandments" (1956). Also, "The Robe" (1953) is not a Bible story, but is the best portrayal of true Christian principles of faith and unconditional love that I have ever seen. Both have amazing, high quality stereo and surround sound for their time. Their original soundtrack albums are two of the all time best in the history of Hollywood also.

In fact, as inaccurate as it may be, I even found the 2008 adventure "10,000 BC" hugely more enjoyable than "Exodus Gods and Kings." Likewise the 1994 sci-fi film "Stargate."
80 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Ridley. You are no Mel Gibson!
salieri_218 December 2014
What a waste of my time and money this movie was. Just feels wrong from start to finish. A fake epic devoid of any real emotions and soul.

Wish Mr. Scott has the courage someone like Mel Gibson had when he made this movie. Passion Of The Christ & Apocalypto are prime examples of a director willing to risk everything for what he believes in(even if you disagree with it). And after watching this film. I can safely say Ridley only believes in money.

Moses & Ramesses should've been played by middle eastern actors. Christian Bale should've played Moses' brother Aaron(according to old scriptures, he did most of the talking for Moses). While John Turturro & Sigourney Weaver casting was just plain wrong!

The story has been told so many times and it would've been much better if Ridley told the story of the Hebrews after leaving Egypt. Their 40- year Sinai plight for example. Started the film with the plagues & the Red Sea parting, then took off from there to show us events not many know of.

Don't waste your money on this. Wait for the director's cut then rent it. Maybe Mr. Scott can save this from the $4.99 shelf.
391 out of 601 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Exodus: Effects and Lack of Emotion
Quinoa198427 April 2015
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?
19 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What A Joke, Save Your Money
Wallstreet50512 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Nice special effects but unrealistic storytelling. Poor acting and poor casting. The movie drags on and on until it ends leaving you feeling worse off then when you came in to watch. I thought it would be better from the previews and all the hype (which clearly is unmerited) but it's not. Bale should stick with the Dark Knight roles he clearly did not know what he was doing attempting to take on the role of Moses. Bland dialogue, slow paced. You know what's coming, everything is already there for the movie to be a blockbuster and yet it amounts to an utter failure. This movie had potential to actually be done well but whoever green-lighted this should be fired. A waste of time!! Uninspiring film. Choppy. I don't think children would even enjoy watching the movie beyond a few special effects here and there. Not family- orientated, poorly executed. Would not see again.
128 out of 197 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Poor casting, lack of emotional depth
carolynpickering5 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Why would Ridley Scott cast an Englishman, an Australian, an American and an Irishman in the biblical story of the Exodus? Does the previous line sounds like the start of a joke? Well unfortunately the joke is on the audience with this visually stunning but shallow 3 hour flick. While the performances were good, the casting was way off. I like Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton and Sigorney Weaver but they are just wrong for their roles and so was the Irishman within Ramses' group of advisor's. I could not get past this miscasting (why not cast Middle Eastern actors in these major roles?). Character development was almost non existent and in the end I cared more for those being smited than any of the main characters which came off as petulant war mongers (including the child representing God to Moses). Perhaps that was Ridley Scott's point. A disappointing ticket purchase from this respected Director. Barely DVD fodder.
96 out of 146 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disappointing Biblical Debacle
3xHCCH9 December 2014
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.
234 out of 377 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The book is much better
SIshh5 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Some ***SPOILERS***

Amazing visuals aside this was a poor movie. When will filmmakers realise the MAIN reason the majority of people watch films is for a story to be told and to relate to the characters involved - NOT to see amazing visuals, as entertaining as they are! The story of Moses in the Bible is rich, amazing and epic. Unfortunately the story in this film is slow, lacks heart, but more importantly, completely betrays the original "true" story.

The scene where Moses kills an Egyptian was flat, empty and over before you could blink. What should have been one of the biggest moments in the movie to help understand Moses passion for his people, character, disdain for Egypt (according to the movie he LOVED Egypt) and origins ended in a flash. Moses showed zero remorse in what was more an act of self defense over empathy.

When you don't tell the whole truthful story the characters involved are ultimately betrayed. The movie suffers from this particularly in God's character. Ridley Scott seems determined to focus on the supposed relationship between Moses and his supposed brother. But we never really care about either of them or their relationship. Not to mention the Bible never mentions this, in fact it implies that the Pharaoh at the time of Moses return didn't even care about him or perhaps even know him?

Ridley Scott would have done well to concentrate on staying true to the story and establishing a connection between the audience and the two central characters: God and Moses. Unfortunately we end up with a movie that is desperately trying to be epic in scale and visuals but somewhat confusing in it's story and it's characters.
161 out of 255 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Scott's visually stunning epic is an emotionless event
eddie_baggins4 December 2014
All creative persons/artists go through a creative funk, it's just part and parcel of the business they're in. Whether it be a writer who suffers from the dreaded writers block, an actor that can't seem to buy a hit or a painter that can't seem to replicate the images in their heads, the creative lulls affect all. Famed British director Ridley Scott, the visionary master behind such classics as Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator has found himself in one of these creative dead zones, but the most telling thing about his time in this lowly state is that his been there for the better part of a decade and after witnessing his new cashed up epic Exodus, it seems he is destined to remain there for the foreseeable future. Exodus is one of the most telling examples of storytelling mediocrity overshadowing impeccable production values that I've ever seen and it would be hard for anyone to argue against the pure visual value present on screen in what is a clearly lavishly splurged upon epic. From monuments through to the slums of the slave's right down to the extra clad streets, Exodus brims to life with a detailed and often incredible visual palette. While the wonders of the on screen production will consistently make you look twice, there seems like such little point to an exercise like this when all is surrounded by a script that never allows us in, alongside Scott directing proceedings like a man that wants to show off but not engage, direction more concerned with how to spectacularly kill of horses than making the characters and story come to life. Much has been made in the media of late surrounding the casting of actors in Exodus but more importantly to movie goers it's important to know just how tame the acting turns are here. Christian Bale makes for a watchable yet not entirely memorable Moses, his incarnation has moments of brief humanity but he feels more a caricature than a living breathing embodiment of one of the Bibles most well-known figures, we feel tiny bits of the weight Moses had on his shoulders, yet our care towards him remains dangerously low. On the other end of the spectrum Australian Joel Edgerton (in perhaps his biggest Hollywood gig yet) fails to deliver on what should've been a glorious big screen villain in the form of Rhamses. All eyeliner and grizzled looks, Edgerton fails to convince in his role and it feels from the get go that sadly he may've been miscast much like John Turturoo's Seti, Aaron Paul's Joshua and Ben Kinglsey's Nun, even the usually scene stealing Ben Mendelsohn as Hegep fails to make much of a mark which leaves the film but a few genuine moments of memorability, that being all largely related to the onset of the plagues. Impressive visuals, stunning sets and some genuinely wow inducing moments concerning the plagues aren't enough to save this emotionally void epic from a giant wave of the mundane. Scott sure knows how to conduct his production department and his sweeping camera sure can capture some outstanding action but the one time storyteller has lost sight of how to portray his characters, how to play out a story and Exodus looks set to become another Scott failure that looks likely to underwhelm audiences as well as Box Office's the world over. 2 shades of eyeliner out of 5
191 out of 306 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
technically sound but adds little to cinema
SnoopyStyle13 May 2015
It's 1300 BC and 400 years of enslavement for the Jews. Moses (Christian Bale) saves Ramesses' (Joel Edgerton) life in a battle with the Hittite. Prophecy suggests that Moses would become the leader. Moses' true origin is revealed and Ramesses becomes leader after his father's death. Moses had discovered Viceroy Hegep's corruption. Hegep reveals Moses' secret to Ramesses and Moses is sent into exile. After having a family, God sends him back to Egypt to lead his people out of slavery.

There are some minor differences from 'The Ten Commandments (56)' that explains the human interactions. Ridley Scott brings the big action. There are great actors doing good work. In the end, this is simply another version of the epic with some changes. It is technically sound. The pace is uneven with some very slow sections. It doesn't add anything to the story or cinema. It can only redo some of the iconic special effects. It doesn't dive into Moses' personality. It tries to make him more human and less icon. It's not as compelling. It leaves me wondering why this movie needed to be made. This movie is made to be forgotten.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An enthralling accomplishment in mythological, fictional or historical storytelling
newmailbrendan8 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Another beautifully achievement in movie making for Ridley Scott to add to his magnificent filmography.

'Exodus: Gods and Kings' is totally uncomplicated and very resourceful for those who didn't knew much about the story of Moses.

The special effects was also a stunningly incredible experience, especially in 3D.

However the first half of the movie is wordy and a bit low on action, but also writing. I find the second half of the story absolutely pretty well told and it really paid off our time we have spent on this long journey. Our much given time felt worthy and most important satisfying.

Because after two hours of watching, coming to experience the ending was so sentimental and extraordinary well done. I think you just can not get no goose bumps. It was mind blowing. It was a masterpiece to watch.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Ridley, what were you thinking?
russellingreviews13 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Exodus: Gods and Kings is based on one of the most important stories in the Jewish and Christian traditions. The film begins with Moses (Christian Bale) as an adult. He has been raised as a prince of Egypt, a brother to the future pharaoh, Ramses (Joel Edgerton) and he is a general of the Egyptian army. He has been blessed with leadership qualities and has the respect of the Egyptian nation and his uncle, Seti, the current Pharaoh (John Turturro). After proving himself on the battlefield and a series of events, he is confronted with his actual familial history and the prophecy of his role in the salvation of the Hebrew nation. Due to the death of an Egyptian guard, Moses is exiled from his home country and eventually comes to Midian. He marries and takes on the role of husband, father and shepherd in his adoptive homeland. While chasing stray sheep on Mount Horeb, he is confronted by God who comes to him in the form of a child. He is charged with freeing the Hebrew nation from 400 years of Egyptian slavery. He is chosen because of his leadership qualities and abilities as a general. Leaving behind his family, he goes back to Egypt and confronts Ramses. Moses threatens the Pharaoh with the message from God to free the Hebrews. The Pharaoh's pride does not allow the slaves to be freed. Moses speaks to the people and trains them for battle. Moses is confronted with the eventual torture of the Hebrew slaves and he wrestles with his ongoing discussions with God. Eventually, due to the lack of response from Ramses, the plagues begin. The powerful nation of Egypt is destroyed through the decimation of it's water and food sources. Flies, frogs, locusts, boils and darkness plague the nation. When the final plague is to come, Moses goes to his adopted brother and pleads for mercy for his people and the nation of Egypt. Pharaoh does not listen and the horror of the plague occurs falls on the Egyptian people, while the Hebrews are spared the impact of the plagues. The Pharaoh relents and the slaves are set free. They journey out of Egypt, which then sets up the conclusive battle at the Red Sea.          This might be a slight revision of the story that many will know from tradition or Sunday school and church stories. Even with the reliance on good special effects for the retelling of the Biblical narrative, there was not much that could have pull this film out from under a poorly written and executed screenplay. Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Alien) has revised the the story to bring it to the big screen and the question has to be, why? There is always room for artistic license to fill in the gaps of the biblical narrative, but to rewrite the core of the story is inexplicable. The Bible provides a wealth of content for the writers and director, but the artistic license taken was unnecessary. The number of scriptural challenges in this film were innumerable: God depicted as a child, the role of Miriam and Aaron, the management of the plagues and the Moses' belief in God. There are enough scriptural problems for theologians to tear apart the film for days and there will be a multitude of articles written. Analysing the theological content is not the main point of this review, but some have to be addressed. The notion of Moses as a warrior has a masculine appeal, but even this nuance does not fit in the end. The depiction of God as a spoilt and vindictive child showed the lack of understanding of the story and of God. One of the biggest questions would be, where was Moses' staff? The staff that God had equipped him with for the sake of delivering the message and leading the people. The staff was not the means of salvation, but it has come to symbolise the message and how God would assist Moses in the delivery of the message and lead his people to the promised land. This detail was missing in the film and epitomised the lack of effort by the screen writers for the finer details in telling the story. Rewriting essential elements of a tale that is so familiar to many around the world will cause an opposition to the believability of this film. Sadly, the drama is provided by God for this epic tale, but in trying to minimise his role in the story takes out the heart of the story and shows Scott's lack of care to the source material.          Exodus: Gods and Kings will be inevitably compared to Noah and to a lesser degree to Son of God. To have three biblical epics portrayed within a calendar year is unprecedented and the comparisons are hard to avoid. The biggest disappointment with Exodus: Gods and Kings is not the merely the poor usage of the original narrative, but with Ridley Scott. He is a film legend and has directed some of the greatest films in history. His ability to direct is without question, but this film failed beyond Aronofsky's Noah, because of the poor use of original content. The book of Exodus is full of rich content. With the resources that are available to him, Ridley had the opportunity to put forward an epic film and to redefine the later part of his career, but he did not achieve this with Exodus. If only he had just told the story and added his artistry to fill in the gaps. It could have been great, but this film fell short. For Ridley Scott fans, this film will not put faith back into the work of this master filmmaker. For the fans of God's story, you will be frustrated by the misrepresentation of the story, but instead of railing against it, reread the account and be ready to clarify what really happened in Egypt with all that go to see this film. 
39 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Here's a thought......
kim-gee5712 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Here's a thought. If you're going to create a movie from a well known book perhaps you should read the book first. Doesn't that seem like a good idea? It is a pretty good book after all. Just like the movie Noah this movie pretends to be something that it isn't. Trying to cash in on what seems like "the year of the Bible movie" and yet not much biblical truth to be found in this movie. The people, the relationships and even God are portrayed as quite different from what is told in the Bible. The effects are impressive. You can't deny Hollywood is great at special effect. But they take the people of the Bible and twist the story and meaning. It's not a Biblical movie.
37 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Rod, not a sword
gabriel_kh12 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I like Ridley Scott's movies. Actually I went to watch "Exodus" only because he was the director. However, in my humble opinion Ridley Scott shouldn't even thought about filming this movie. It was ridiculously inaccurate in many details. Eg. Moses didn't kill two Egyptians but one, he fled to desert and was not exiled there, he spent not 9 years but 40 yrs in the desert, the Bible never says that Moses used a sword! Aaron used to talk before each plague to Pharaoh and in the movie even Moses doesn't do that, and that humiliating image of God being a child and that kiddish dialogue between Moses and God, etc. So the whole interpretation of the story of Exodus is pretty much diverted in this movie. Now the question is, why take an information from a certain source if you are going to completely divert it? Better be more creative than just diverting a story. Pass.
55 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not sure who the intended audience is...
markcochran_9911 December 2014
I really wanted to like this movie. But it fell way short of my expectations. Christian Bale and Ben Kingsley don't get involved in many bad movies, so this caught me by surprise. Despite the title, the movie has virtually no resemblance to the biblical account in Exodus. So the faith-based audience is not going to like it. For the rest of those watching, the storyline is hard to follow and doesn't make sense at times. There are subtle messages that people won't pick up on unless they are knowledgeable of the actual Exodus account. For example the scene in the distance with the gold calf idol. Character development fell short. The one redeeming quality is some cool graphics, that will save the movie ratings.
26 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Who Wrote This?
momentum12345612 December 2014
No seriously, who wrote this? WHO casted this? This movie was something similar to torture. About 20 minutes in I was already regretting my decision to spend my hard earned cash on this film. Bale's acting is laughable and looks better suited for a SNL parody. Before I got up and left after I had my intelligence insulted for 30 minutes I made sure to dump my popcorn on the floor to punish this theater for even playing this.

All in all I'd say stay far away from this film. Unless you are an insomniac and low on Nyquill, or need a laugh. Then watch it. Again, who casted this film? This depiction of this era in time is not only inaccurate it is hilariously played out on the big screen.

Save your money and see something else. Trust me. You too will be soon wanting to shove razor blades in your eyes if you see this film.
35 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Ridley Scott has misfired.
sverige-icebaby8 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Awful, awful movie. Christian Bale is mediocre, Joel Edgerton is surprisingly good, but the rest of it sucks. The whole thing lacked any kind of oomph. No spectacular Red Sea parting, none of the atmosphere of such a great and legendary story. Just an atheist agenda pushing along a sad little pram of replacement theories. Truly, truly dreadful. I'm glad I didn't pay to see it. Don't waste your money. People with Scott's attitude toward the Bible should steer clear of anything to do with it. He has some personal issues he needs to deal with inside a therapist's office, and not with the funding provided by movie backers. Get over it, Ridley. You're a sad little man.
94 out of 162 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Excellent to expose the stupidity of biblical literalists
Bento_de_Espinosa6 March 2015
I'm giving this film a 10, not because it's an excellent movie (it's a OK movie). I'm giving it a 10 for the courage of its makers to deviate from the biblical narration, although it could have been an even looser interpretation of the Exodus story, since it never happened in reality anyway.

I'm amazed and amused at the same time by the many negative reviews given by angry religious people who are mad at the film makers for not sticking to the "historical facts". Are you kidding me? These people read a story that for centuries was orally passed from generation to generation, until it one day, some 2,500 years ago, i.e. many centuries after the supposed events, got written down, and they call it "historical facts"?!

If this story happened the way the Bible tells it, then biblical literalists really are worshiping a sadistic tyrant, who kills innocent people and even children. Is this what they want?

Please think: You have 400 years of Hebrew presence in Egypt and about 2,000,000 people (600,000 men + their families + a number of non Hebrews) walking for 40 years in the desert, and despite 200 years of intense search absolutely nothing has ever been found that shows that this biblical tale really took place. Zero, nada, niente! Even many Jews don't believe in it anymore. In the 1970s archaeologists gave up searching for evidence.

So, why should a film about the Exodus stick to the "facts" when this story is not based on facts?

If religious people want historical facts, how about this one: according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, fact is that the Hebrews were polytheists. After the Babylonian exile (around 500 BC), the prophets compelled them to stick with Yahweh (Jehovah), who was just one of their many gods, but had become the main one.

And if you think Moses was a man of God, then open your Bible now and read Numbers 31:13-18. That was Moses! And in Deuteronomy 13:6-10 Yahweh himself commands the Israelites to kill their own families, if they turn to other gods. If you believe in the Bible, this is the god you are following!

Again, the film is not superb, but not bad either.
222 out of 408 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Stunning Hollywood Fraud
filmloverdownunder999 December 2014
Exodus: Gods and Kings is a stunning biblical epic with beautiful A-list stars. The grand shots with seamless CGI are the best visual recreation to date of the sheer magnitude of the exodus. Scott artfully brings to life an ancient world that is beautiful to watch. Unfortunately good looks, great actors and a big budget don't equate to a great movie in this case. Christian Bale and the entire cast's excellent performances were overshadowed by the poor casting choices to hire them. The all-white lead cast and betrayal of the biblical tale can be brushed off as Hollywood child-play. However, the unbelievable characters, flimsy dialog and exhausting monotonous tension plagued Exodus. The film is visually beautiful; but unfortunately not much else.
162 out of 295 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
sizlowski5 December 2014
I could not believe how bad it would be. It really was an imaginary tale about a fictitious Moses and Ramses. It departed so far from the Exodus Biblical text that it did not deserve the title. Anachronistic in ideas and attitudes - eg, having Pharaoh discussing his decisions almost democratically!! Moses had more than one wife in reality, but Sarah didn't get a look in in the movie. The Pharaoh character was weak, and the distortion of Moses' relationship with God was idiotic - making God out to be an unwise brat. The miracles were watered down to try and make them look like natural events, but much was missing. No pillar of fire or smoke, no staff, no passover meal, no gold given to the Jews as they were leaving, etc etc. This was much worse than the recent Noah movie.
399 out of 758 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed