Exodus: Gods and Kings was a perfectly apt film to finish the year with, coming as it did at Christmas; you know, that time of year loosely based around a biblical story that has been messed around with, diluted, corrupted and made to fit the limited understanding and excessive desires of the masses. And so it is with Ridley Scott's latest epic.
For those who have never opened a bible, read the book of Exodus or heard the story of Moses, fear not; Ridley Scott has made Exodus: Gods and Kings just for you. Starting slowly, just so that you keep up, he introduces us to Moses (Christian Bale), adopted brother of Ramses (Joel Edgerton), shows how close they are, highlights the jealousy from Ramses and sets in motion the evil actions that lead to Moses struggling to free 600,000 slaved Israelites armed with God and his/her/its various plagues.
If you have even the vaguest understanding of the 'true' story, as depicted in the bible, or even a passing knowledge of the generally accepted history of the time, step away. To say it is anachronistic is to claim the Titanic took on some water. God, if he has a celestial screening room, is either preparing a Hollywood-bound bolt of lightning or giggling hysterically. Exodus: Gods and Kings is better than Darren Aronofsky's Noah, but only marginally.
Forget any hint of the miraculous for a start. All those miracles (the plagues, the serpent and staff, the gift of the ten commandments ) you've heard of? Nope. All either absent or explained by visions, delusions and science. Oh, except for the final plague. Hmm, I guess Scott ran out of ideas and logic for that one. So lost is the director that he doesn't even explain what the final plague is until it occurs (despite his source material sating Moses spelt it out in advance) just so that you, oh unenlightened viewer, can revel in the surprise. Oh boy.
Moses, meanwhile, has his own mental health issues visualizing God not as an omnipotent entity in a burning bush or a tower of flame but a petulant child with the acting ability of a recently slaughtered goat. He also seems unsure who or what is causing the plagues, at first threatening the Pharaoh with yet more unless he frees the slaves and later claiming he has no control or influence over them. With the final plague, he virtually shrugs his shoulders and says "Nothing to do with me, mate. Even I think God has ballsed this one up." Oh, the pain.
Scott has become known as a director who matches his huge success with some terrible clunks. Surely we're due at least one phenomenal film soon. Please? Why, when the man is capable of creating original yarns that thrill and excite decades after release (Blade Runner, Alien ), has he chosen to take a story familiar and loved by millions more than will ever watch his films, and trash it with his own invention? I like Scott. I'm one of the few who 'got' Prometheus, one of the fewer still who paid to see Matchstick Men. Furthermore, I'm not a paid up member of any church, but even I can see what a mess he's made of Exodus: Gods and Kings.
What begins as an arduous plod quickly becomes a rush as the plagues are whizzed through and the forty-year trek to Canaan (Yes, I know you and I could probably crawl it in six months) flits by. Characters are lost with barely a look down the lens; Sigourney Weaver and Aaron Paul might just as well have been played by mannequins for all the attention they are given.
And let's not delve to deeply with the laughable melting pot of accents on display within the same tribes and families. At least in Scott's Robin Hood the ludicrous variation in accents came, largely, out of just Russell Crowe's mouth.
So why two stars instead of just one? For two reasons: 1. Some of the sets and CGI are beautiful, though lacking in depth and scale to make Exodus: Gods and Kings truly an epic; and 2. Because Noah was worse.
For more reviews from The Squiss, subscribe to my blog and like the Facebook page.
For those who have never opened a bible, read the book of Exodus or heard the story of Moses, fear not; Ridley Scott has made Exodus: Gods and Kings just for you. Starting slowly, just so that you keep up, he introduces us to Moses (Christian Bale), adopted brother of Ramses (Joel Edgerton), shows how close they are, highlights the jealousy from Ramses and sets in motion the evil actions that lead to Moses struggling to free 600,000 slaved Israelites armed with God and his/her/its various plagues.
If you have even the vaguest understanding of the 'true' story, as depicted in the bible, or even a passing knowledge of the generally accepted history of the time, step away. To say it is anachronistic is to claim the Titanic took on some water. God, if he has a celestial screening room, is either preparing a Hollywood-bound bolt of lightning or giggling hysterically. Exodus: Gods and Kings is better than Darren Aronofsky's Noah, but only marginally.
Forget any hint of the miraculous for a start. All those miracles (the plagues, the serpent and staff, the gift of the ten commandments ) you've heard of? Nope. All either absent or explained by visions, delusions and science. Oh, except for the final plague. Hmm, I guess Scott ran out of ideas and logic for that one. So lost is the director that he doesn't even explain what the final plague is until it occurs (despite his source material sating Moses spelt it out in advance) just so that you, oh unenlightened viewer, can revel in the surprise. Oh boy.
Moses, meanwhile, has his own mental health issues visualizing God not as an omnipotent entity in a burning bush or a tower of flame but a petulant child with the acting ability of a recently slaughtered goat. He also seems unsure who or what is causing the plagues, at first threatening the Pharaoh with yet more unless he frees the slaves and later claiming he has no control or influence over them. With the final plague, he virtually shrugs his shoulders and says "Nothing to do with me, mate. Even I think God has ballsed this one up." Oh, the pain.
Scott has become known as a director who matches his huge success with some terrible clunks. Surely we're due at least one phenomenal film soon. Please? Why, when the man is capable of creating original yarns that thrill and excite decades after release (Blade Runner, Alien ), has he chosen to take a story familiar and loved by millions more than will ever watch his films, and trash it with his own invention? I like Scott. I'm one of the few who 'got' Prometheus, one of the fewer still who paid to see Matchstick Men. Furthermore, I'm not a paid up member of any church, but even I can see what a mess he's made of Exodus: Gods and Kings.
What begins as an arduous plod quickly becomes a rush as the plagues are whizzed through and the forty-year trek to Canaan (Yes, I know you and I could probably crawl it in six months) flits by. Characters are lost with barely a look down the lens; Sigourney Weaver and Aaron Paul might just as well have been played by mannequins for all the attention they are given.
And let's not delve to deeply with the laughable melting pot of accents on display within the same tribes and families. At least in Scott's Robin Hood the ludicrous variation in accents came, largely, out of just Russell Crowe's mouth.
So why two stars instead of just one? For two reasons: 1. Some of the sets and CGI are beautiful, though lacking in depth and scale to make Exodus: Gods and Kings truly an epic; and 2. Because Noah was worse.
For more reviews from The Squiss, subscribe to my blog and like the Facebook page.