Exodus: Gods and Kings
DIRECTED BY: Ridley Scott, WRITTEN BY: Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine, Steven Zaillian, RUN TIME: 150 Mins, RELEASE: 2014
SYNOPSIS: Epic adventure Exodus: Gods and Kings is the story of one man's daring courage to take on the might of an empire. Using state of the art visual effects and 3D immersion, Scott brings new life to the story of the defiant leader Moses as he rises up against the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses, setting 600,000 slaves on a monumental journey of escape from Egypt and its terrifying cycle of deadly plagues. ~ 20th Century Fox.
First I think that it is fair to say that Exodus: Gods and Kings has received its fair (or unfair) share of negative criticism from 'professional' critics and everyday viewing cinephiles. Some of them range from its odd time and location jumps, it's embellished and inaccurate telling of the 'true' story, it's overly long run time and basically that it's a flat, unappealing and thoroughly dull re-telling of the age-old story. That sums up just some poor criticism that it received, but I'll get to those in a bit.
Now I'll be honest, having read absolutely nothing about this and going in completely blind as to what it was about I went into this with complete ignorance expecting some sort of swords and sandals experience; obviously that was not what I got. To that end, the surprise was a welcome one, and I must admit I felt a little silly at not knowing it's story and tuning in to the 'Exodus' part of the title, but sometimes I do like to go into a film without reading all about it and watching the thirty-two trailers that come with it.
So let me address some criticism (as mentioned above). I'll admit that from his (Moses) time as General and royal household member, throughout his journey and to the film's finale there are several time-jumps that occur that had me saying out loud 'bloody hell, that was quick', but to be honest they never had me scratching my head in confusion as to what the hell was going on. Sure, they could have slowed things down on occasion, whilst other times they could well have sped things up and done without certain scenes, but when you are putting together such an epic and well known story and squeezing it into a 150-minute feature film, then certain sacrifices are going to have to be made, one way or another. As far as I am concerned, this really didn't affect the pleasure of the viewing for me. I understand its necessity, and the critique (to that end) just doesn't warrant any negativity.
Let's focus on the story itself. I think it's important to note that how you view this film comes down (in part) to your own personal beliefs on the validity of the legend. I certainly have my own opinions, but they are not the focus of my review, so I'll just leave them unspoken (although I assume if you are a devout believer, then you would probably not be watching this film in the first place save to point out its obvious inaccuracies). Let's not be under any illusion, Exodus: Gods and Kings is loosely based on the biblical tale of Moses. This is not in any way a documentary or a historical learning experience. This a film. An action/adventure film that should be taken as such and nothing more. Though it stays subtly faithful to the 'facts', there is a very heavy usage of artistic licence, but this is a Hollywood film designed to entertain, not educate. There is no credit pre-text stating that the events in this film are based on staunch fact. Neither does it claim to follow the exact teachings of the Bible. To go into this film expecting a greatly told and scrutinized telling of Moses' voyage is pretty naive. Of course the film depicts such things as 'the burning bush', 'the Red Sea' and 'the plague of locusts' that most of us know so well, but we live in a cinematic time when film makers are constantly trying to push the boundaries of visual effects and make their projects look all the more impressive so there are added extras to the devastation brought down upon the Egyptian people by God, but this only served to improve the viewing pleasure for me personally, and it all looked pretty damn great.
So what about the criticism that it was dull, flat and unappealing? This one is far much simpler for me to argue; I just don't get it. My opinion is that this story is told fantastically well. Despite my pre-viewing knowledge that this film had been slated in pretty much every way imaginable, I was hooked in from the start, and my interest and enjoyment of it never wavered in the slightest the entire way through. In fact, the longer that it went on, the more I got infused and captivated by its story. The script is strong and the whole thing looks absolutely amazing. Visually it's quite spectacular too. I see the word 'cinematography' thrown into reviews quite often and wonder what the given reviewer thinks the word actually means, but in this case all credit goes to Dariusz Wolski, who's keen eye and obviously natural vision made E:GaK so appealing to watch. #
The film has also received some bad reviewing press for both it's cast and characters, but again I find myself completely befuddled by this. In the role of Moses, I thought that Bale was a great choice. Admittedly, Bale tackles this role with the same dead-pan, serious and scowling expression on his face that he exacts in most of his films, but that is kind of his thing and in all fairness to him he is great at it. What I will say about Bale is that as an actor he is the absolute master of adaptation and change. He can commit to and become a character far better than most other others on the planet, and his portrayal of the Hebrew General is certainly no exception. The transformation of the character is splendidly written and enhanced in its splendour by Bale's flawless and naturally flowing performance. I genuinely don't feel that there are many actors that could have pulled it off so well. To that end (and many others) I will defend this film relentlessly.
Joel Edgerton also puts in a great showing Moses one-time friend turned bitter enemy Ramses, and serves as a great counter-balance to all that Moses stands for. That being said, If I were to give some negativity to the character (which I will) I'd have to say that I found him to be a little of a panto villain that didn't quite sit well with me in side-by-side comparison to Bale's Moses. However, I certainly cannot knock Edgerton's portrayal of him. He was a joy to watch. As for the supporting actors/characters, they all just pretty much played second fiddle to the two main leads, but I cannot honestly say that I found any of them to be annoying or irrelevant, aside from the casting of Sigourney Weaver whose role I think could have gone to anyone really. There just wasn't the need to cast such an actress of great standing in such a small part, but I guess that just came down to the fact that Scott and Weaver have obvious work history and the utmost respect for each other. I enjoyed watching Ben Kingsley as 'Nun' (but who doesn't like to watch him in anything?) and it was nice to see John Turturro in a straight role (of sorts). I think my favourite support though has to be Ben Mendelsohn and the delightfully scheming and undeniably camp Viceroy Hegep, who added such a great dynamic to the film.
So what are my overall thoughts on Exodus: Gods and kings? Well, despite the consensus that this film sucked in so many ways, I'm going to go against the grain and say this is a thoroughly enjoyable film that just doesn't deserve the pasting that it has received. Of course there were certainly aspects that could have been improved on, but I could say that about pretty much any film that has ever been made. However, don't take my word for it and don't ignore it based on the negativity either. Take a look for yourself and formulate your own judgement. Personally, I absolutely loved it and in my opinion Exodus: Gods and Kings is about as close to a modern day epic as you are going to get.
'Follow me and you will be free. Stay and you will perish'.