Ridley Scott's "Exodus" - Part 1

[Herolee10]

This movie has more problems than just deleted scenes.

Agreed.

 

[Marvolo]

Aweeeeesome. Hopefully it'll make the film more coherent. The first half of the film especially suffers from poor editing.

Yeah. The foundation of the film is very weak due to it too. Characters appear and disappear with little to no introduction or proper exit.

 

[kvz5]

I'm very disappointed in Zaillian. I thought he was going to be the saving grace of the film.

 

[chaseter]

Yeah, I was actually thinking the same thing after reading some more posts in this thread. If they wanted to go with the logic that the only way to get their market (predominantly caucasian, I'm assuming) interested in this movie was to have a white cast I'd say that seems understandable. But instead they give the high profile roles to white actors with bit parts being played by the correct historical ethnicity, which shows that they were aware of the racial component but ignored it. They were basically going "We know Egyptians and Jews didn't look like this, but you won't take this **** seriously unless somebody you've seen before delivers these lines, so **** it!".

The more ridiculous part is that there are actually some great actors out there with the right look, surely Dev Patel or Riz Ahmed strike a good combination between looking the part and having some broader appeal? I dunno, the whole casting thing seems like the twilight zone to me, absolutely ridiculous. So if they make a movie about Shaka Zulu or Ghengis Khan will they be played by Bradley Cooper but with black/mongolian extras respectively?

I think getting worked up about race issues in Hollywood movies when race is arbitrary for the story is unproductive, but when race or geography (and in that case race indirectly) are historical and known variables it makes zero sense to cast actors that aren't congruent with the historical facts.

It's a movie, not a documentary. Dev Patel's name doesn't put butts in seats. Christianity has a white Jesus anyways even though he most likely didn't look anything like he's been depicted for 1000 years. The movie's problem isn't casting. If it was amazing, no one would care about the actors not being Egyptian.

 

[Marvolo]

After two weeks this film has made a whopping $109 million worldwide. It's reported budget is $140 million.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=exodus.htm

Unless it manages to find new life, this isn't going to be very profitable at all.

 

[dustbros]

Period films don't do well thesedays unless it's fantasy based on.
Fox might not release 4 hour cut after all. Arrrrrrrgh.

 

[DA_Champion]

They whitewashed it for commercial reasons, so I do feel some satisfaction in seeing it fail.

 

[dustbros]

^ more like for financial reasons.

 

[tek]

this was just ok for me. Preferred Noah, though having Crowe as the lead helps

 

[Herolee10]

The film suffers from editing issues, casting issues, biblical issues, and narrative issues....is it really an mystery as to why this film may most likely end up being a bomb in the long run?

 

[matrix_ghost]

They whitewashed it for commercial reasons, so I do feel some satisfaction in seeing it fail.

I have to agree with you.
While the leads are well known, none of them are really big BO draws so yeah.
A movie is a good movie if you get the right actors giving the right performances.

 

[ThePhantasm]

They whitewashed it, and they also neutered the original story in a lot of places... as much as I love Ridley Scott, this movie is making more than the amount of money that it deserves.

 

[dustbros]

people dont really care about leads skin color.
srsly. its a freaking movie.

 

[Drz]

people dont really care about leads skin color.

Yes they do, Hollywood wouldn't had financed this movie if they couldn't have Christian Bale and others star this.

Same goes for audiences, Americans can't stand unknown actors.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

nice post

zryson... Dat you?

 

[Human Torch]

asd vz

Are you speaking in Tongues or something?

 

[Iceman]

Damn, this really is doing some low numbers. I want to watch it but won't be at the cinema.

 

[Apollo]

Bad: I felt Seymour Simmons, Jesse Pinkman and Sigorny Weaver were distracting. John Daggett was annoying. I was waiting for Bane to come out and kill him again. Disregard to the source material. Changes from the source material. Deletions from the source material. I felt they shouldn't have called this Exodus:God's and Kings. There was a lot of artistic re-imagining. Simply God's and Kings would have been a better title

Good: Joel Edgerton was brilliant. Ben Kingsley was wonderful. All of the background ethnic characters. The visuals, set design and costumes of course.

Indifferent: Christian Bale as Moses. God as a child. The fighting scenes.

I don't even know what to grade this. I do grade very generously. I gave Ninja Turtles 2014 a B-.
There was a lot of things I didn't like and some things I liked. It wasn't worth the ticket price. I wish I would have waited until it came out to rent.

I felt it was better than Noah. But like Noah I don't see any reason to watch it again. I wouldn't recommend this. However, I would only recommend this to someone who actually read Exodus, so they would know the differences. I might check out the extended cut if critics say there is an improvement.
In the end, the trailer was better.
Grade: D+
Maybe a C-
just to be nice.

 

[Schlosser85]

I didn't think anyone gave a noteworthy performance. I thought Bale and Edgerton wree both kind of goofy and some others like Sigourney were totally unconvincing.

A couple supporting people like Kingsley were fine i guess, but everyone's characters were so undeveloped that it didn't really matter.

And between this and TDKR, is Ben Mendelssohn a campy little queen or what?

 

[Hurm...]

I didn't think anyone gave a noteworthy performance. I thought Bale and Edgerton wree both kind of goofy and some others like Sigourney were totally unconvincing.

A couple supporting people like Kingsley were fine i guess, but everyone's characters were so undeveloped that it didn't really matter.

And between this and TDKR, is Ben Mendelssohn a campy little queen or what?

Mendelson's done some amazing work, but yeah, those weren't his best performances.

 

[Snow Queen]

My 12 year old brother upon seeing the trailer: "Why are there so many white people in Egypt?"

 

[baerrtt]

It's a movie, not a documentary. Dev Patel's name doesn't put butts in seats. Christianity has a white Jesus anyways even though he most likely didn't look anything like he's been depicted for 1000 years. The movie's problem isn't casting. If it was amazing, no one would care about the actors not being Egyptian.

Dev Patel's first major leading role was in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE a movie that was a major commercial success domestically and worldwide. It's hardly Patel's fault that he wasn't extended the kind of 'next big thing' opportunities(and playing a bad guy in the similarly whitewashed THE LAST AIRBENDER doesn't count) everyone damn well knows he would have gotten if he was white.

On more than one occasion there have been movies (including the one I've mentioned) with non white and unknown casts and leads that have done great business and yet in 2014 we still have the likes of Scott, Rupert Murdoch and random forum users defending the practices that haven't helped the film from underperforming or, now as reported, being banned in countries from the region it depicts.

 

[Hurm...]

Dev Patel does not look Egyptian at all. He looks Indian. So casting an Indian as an Egyptian is suddenly a more accurate casting choice than casting a white guy? No. Both choices are equally as ridiculous.

Since when did South Asians look North African? Your argument is poor.

 

[SpitCurl]

Dev Patel wouldn't be a better option, but I think the original point (and the only one that matters) is that there are actors who could've done fine in the role who would be more regionally/historically accurate. I think that poster was just throwing names out of there of actors who at least have the right approximate pigmentation, so, a step in the right direction if not still off the mark.

(Also, Dev Patel might not put butts in seats, but, it's worth noting that neither do the leads who were actually cast. You can point to Bale's accolades and talent, but honestly, outside of Batman he is not a box office draw, he was always more of an "indy darling" giving good performances in smaller films like Equilibrium, Rescue Dawn and The Machinest that general audiences basically ignored. Seriously, I don't know a single person that saw Rescue Dawn, and that movie is my jam. Joel Edgerton I know only from the SW prequels and The Great Gatsby, neither of which he stared in, so, eh.)

 

[Schlosser85]

Yea, Joel Edgerton probably isn't much if any better known than Dev Patel. I thought he was good in Warrior, but everyone was talking about Hardy and Nolte, and he wasn't a lead in Gatsby.