Ridley's Scott's Exodus

If they go ahead with this film project, I wonder whether Scott will do more high camp deMille and ....bring on the dancing girls when the action lags , and depict orgy party gatherings of slobbering kissing and wasteful food scattering to both,, represent to audiences and then convince them that ...." AND much wicked sin took place in Moses' time ! ".
Biblical films in their casting choices, situational moiments, and script dialogue ....have always provided some of the most hilarious comical risible moments in film making. Where would we be , without them?

 

New trailer went up a few days ago. Looks like an entertaining epic to me....! Seems like Ridley Scott almost did a mini-mind-meld with Cecil B. DeMille....?

 

And just for fun, here's the "epic" ten-minute trailer for The Ten Commandments from 1956, which is probably the longest trailer ever made.

 

I just can't get a grip on Bale as Moses. If he was emotional during the filming of Terminator Salvation nobody and I mean nobody better mess with lighting during the filming of this picture.

 

Not a bad movie but not great either. Some parts were kind of slow and/or boring.

Saw it in 3D and the 3D screening I saw, the colors were bland and dark (even during the daylight scenes.)

If you are a big fan of The Ten Commandments, like I am, you will be somewhat disappointed in this one.

 

I guess I might be the only person on the planet to say this, but Ridley Scott's Exodus was one of my favorite movies of the year. Of course it's spectacular, but to me it was also surprisingly moving. Can't wait for the extended edition, but to me this is already one of his best films. I'm a fan of DeMille's version, as well as the Prince of Egypt, but this one at least equals those two imho, and may even exceed them for me. But comparisons are beside the point, since this film is just its own vision. As you can tell, I disagree with the negative reviews.

(Oh, and btw, I'm not really a believer, not that it matters....)

 

As I said, I rate Exodus, even before the DC, as one of Sir Ridley Scott's best. For comparison, here are my ratings of his others that I've seen....

The Duellists: B
Alien DC: A+
Blade Runner DC: A
Legend DC: C-
Someone to Watch Over Me: haven't seen it
Black Rain: B+
Thelma and Louise: B+
1492:Conquest of Paradise: B
White Squall: A-
G.I. Jane: B+
Gladiator DC: A-
Hannibal: haven't seen it
Black Hawk Down: B+
Matchstick Men: haven't seen it
Kingdom of Heaven DC: A
A Good Year: haven't seen it
American Gangster: B-
Body of Lies: B
Robin Hood DC: B+
Prometheus: C+
The Counselor: haven't seen it
Exodus: A

 

hmmm. One of the biggest complaints with all the reviews is the lack of emotion. But I'm in for anything he does...

oh - fyi - Hannibal is so bad. Matchstick Men was ok.

 

I liked Matchstick Men quite a bit. Never realized Ridley directed it, or Hannibal.

 

Exodus is well-enough done with a lot of attention to detail, and I like how they handled the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea (an interesting mirror of our times vs the 50s and The Ten Commandments), but I kept thinking the whole time as I watched it, "What's the point really of making this?" I know "Hollywood is out of new ideas," it's just this seemed like an odd choice.

 

Beats me. I'd never want to see a movie of this genre.

 

I liked it.
A great story is a great story regardless of the origin.

 

A friend saw it and she was disappointed. I may still see it because of the actress Maria Valverde.

 

Just watched it and enjoyed it very much.

 

May see this tomorrow night. Anyone have any sense of whether it's worth seeking the third D? Or does it just darken the screen? I always feel as if this is a big decision with a lot at stake, whether to go 2D or 3D . . .

 

I'm a bit surprised that more actors of color weren't considered for the film's lead roles.

 

Very mixed feelings about this picture. The sets and effects and costumes and pageantry and battles are all awesome, and the 3D is good. But with all its expenses, it is a travesty that the whole thing is built around a ten-cent script. The dialogue is so bad -- so superficial and hackneyed -- I honestly expected when Pharaoh asks Moses about the coming final plague, "Is that a threat?" that Moses would answer, "No. It's a promise." By that point it would not have seemed out of place. And the story is paced poorly.

I don't see there to be any requirement, either for verisimilitude or any other reason, to cast actors or actresses of any particular complexion, but it would have been a good idea to take your suggestion just for the sake of variety, to avoid the scoff of recognition. It's just odd seeing Sigourney Weaver, John Turturro, and even Ben Kinglsey, especially when they're so flat and uninspiring. Christian Bale is terrible for about the first half of the film, though in fairness there's very little he's given to say that could be made to sound anything other than ponderous or glib.

 

It would have been nice to see darker skinned persons cast just for the sake of a semblance of accuracy. This was AFRICA. But then every movie I've seen about Egypt has been rife with inaccuracies.

I'm hoping to see this soon.

 

I don't think simply pointing to the fact that ancient Egypt was in northeast Africa answers the longstanding and controversial question of what the ancient Egyptians might have looked like. What makes things worse though is that you recognize these people -- John Turturro and Sigourney Weaver are New Yorkers. What are they doing here? Not really acting. Joel Edgerton is probably the most convincing, more convincingly made-up, at least, and sympathetic. (I just came across this review in the London Evening Standard where the critic felt the same way: http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/...oses-lacks-any-kind-of-coherence-9935251.html) In any event, I hope you do go see it soon, as I'm interested in knowing what you think. I have a suspicion you will relegate the pigmentation of Pharaoh and family low on the list of historical concerns.

Has there been any recreation of ancient Egypt, on the screen or in literature, that is convincing? It's a serious question -- I don't know the answer.

 

I've been studying Ancient Egypt on my own for about four decades. More and more I think that the classic Egyptological view has often been used as an agenda to paint Egypt as Caucasian and that this is inaccurate. Most of the real archaeological record seems to point to Egypt having its roots in the South and as African in nature. Certainly there were periods where Pharaohs were from the South and clearly African. Whether there really was a time that Israelites were enslaved in Egypt is not really established in the archaeological record, the whole Exodus story has not been "pinned down" to one rule, time period precisely etc.

I personally haven't seen ancient Egypt on the screen convincingly portrayed. In literature I like Paul C. Doherty's historical fiction, it's loose enough to not get too tangled in inaccuracies.

 

It strangely looks a lot like the same old Moses story. I don't know, it looks kinda hokey to me.

 

I dunno - if you study the period of state formation, Egypt has it's roots in native Nile Valley cultures with influences from the south AND north east. To say it has it's roots purely in the South is incorrect IMO. And if you're talking about "classical" Egyptology from the first half of the 20th century then maybe there were dodgy racial overtones, but if you study Egyptology nowadays there's no attempt to paint them as Caucasian at all. At least not from my experience.

 

Yes, the classical Egyptological view, there's little attempt at painting them Caucasian now, so why not more dark skinned persons in the movie? (I haven't seen the movie).

The most recent readings I have made are emphasizing the Upper Egyptian beginnings, and the more "African" roots. I made an assumption from that I should have worded that better.

 

Ridley Scott seems to make nothing but interesting failures now. Exodus, like Prometheus and the Counselor, doesn't work as a story -- characters behave in inexplicable ways and scenes seem to happen with no narrative justification, with big stars standing around reacting -- but its disjointedness makes it rattle around in your head that much more loudly than a more conventionally/effectively executed story would be. I'm still not sure what Scott was trying to 'say' with this seemingly random assortment of episodes from (and not from) the bible, which makes for a very stark contrast with Aronofsky's Noah -- a film that was much more divisive but was clearly saying something.

I did think that John Turturro did his most interesting acting in years as the first pharaoh.

 

Scott's response to the criticism was pretty terrible, but his point was not untrue. It's a sad reality that films with minorities in starring roles make less money in overseas markets and make it much more difficult to acquire financing and international distribution.