Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

Well, it is Christmas time so I guess bringing out a film based on a tale from the Bible is the right thing to do. And after we followed the story of the Ark earlier this year, we now follow Moses and the Hebrews...in a film where virtually no-one is of the same ethnicity of the characters they're playing. Yeah the whole, "whitewashing" thing. In all honesty, it doesn't really bother me, but that's mainly because I'm used to it. Jake Gyllenhaal in 'Prince of Persia', Gerard Butler in '300', Sean Connery in 'Highlander' where, instead of playing a Scottish block, he's playing an Egyptian. I don't think it's right, don't get me wrong.

Ridley Scott said that the film basically wouldn't have been made because it wouldn't have been financed. No-one would have financed a film starring some unknown. Which fair enough, one or two (or three) big names to grab peoples attention. Though when he was quoted as saying "I can't mount a film of this budget...and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such" it sounds like he didn't even bother looking in the first place. I mean, Idris Elba? Chiwetel Ejiofor? I can actually see Chiwetel Ejiofor doing a great job as Ramesses II.

Anyway. Course if you want a more...in depth look into the race issue, you can look at this.

So here, we follow a prince called Moses (Christian Bale) and his adoptive brother Ramesses (Joel Edgerton...who, I'm sorry, but looks really...really...hmm...I'm gonna go with plastic). Moses finds the treatment of the Hebrew slaves deplorable, but soon finds himself exiled when it is discovered he's of Hebrew descent. Moses however returns after meeting God (Isaac Andrews, and I actually don't agree with the idea that God is represented by a child) in order to free his people.

There may or may not be spoilers. It's kind of hard to know what to say about a story that's literally as old as the Bible. Because it's in the Bible.

I might as well get the acting out of the way. It's...good I suppose.  I didn't really...I'm actually finding it hard to think of anything to say about this. It just felt like the characters were plodding along, I didn't feel any emotion from them. Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, um...I'm sure other people were in it, they weren't in it long enough for me to care. Bale is the focus point, but I can't really see any difference between his performance in this and 'The Dark Knight' series.

I suppose it's more how the characters are written. And how the plot was written. You see, Ridley Scott (the director in case you didn't know) decided to look for scientific methods for the plagues and God and the Parting of the Red Sea. Now, this actually bothered me more than I thought it would. That and Bale saying that Moses was "schizophrenic" and "barbaric". I can see why, the whole "there's a scientific explanation for everything" thing. But...why?

That's the thing I don't get by trying to explain everything as science...in a bible story. You're supposed to be telling a story about God, not trying to debunk it. The film even has a scientist character who explains to Ramesses/the audience why science can be used here, which really doesn't work since the Ancient Egyptians were a pretty religious race. Oh yeah, they had great scientific advances like paper (papyrus), irrigation system, medical procedures, heck, their building methods were very advanced. But do you know how many deities they had? Anubis, Seth (or Set), Osiris, Horus, Sekhmet, Ra, Amun, Sobek, Isis, and Thoth...and those are just the common ones you hear about. Heck, some combine! Like Amun-Ra!

And then, of course, there's God, who the film is portraying as a possible hallucination. One of the most famous stories from the bible, and you're saying it was some madman's fantasy. And yet, after saying that most (if not all) of the plagues were a multipler effect caused by...well, the first plague (which actually seems more implausible than a supernatural force being behind it), and yet the likelihood of all these things, as well as an unexplained plague of darkness, and a tidal wave, all happening around the same time, it's just too much of a coincidence. Then, with the scientific method, God's plagues are also targeting the Hebrews, which makes sense in a realistic world, but not when God is suppose to be using Moses to free the Hebrews because they're suffering. That's when you have to wonder if Scott is going down the scientific route or the religious route. Though I'm sure Scott intentionally left that open for the audience to decide for themselves.

As mentioned earlier there's also the way how the characters are portrayed. I've mentioned God was portrayed as a kid earlier, and I don't agree with that, basically because God then comes off as a child having a tantrum (which, in one scene, he actually does), as well as irritating rather than all-powerful. Like 'The Prince of Egypt', 'Exodus' should have focused on the relationship between Moses and Ramesses, that's what made 'The Prince of Egypt' successful; we get to see the human side of Ramesses a lot more clearly. However in 'Exodus' Ramesses, and his relationship with Moses, feels underdeveloped so we don't care about it.

Moses meanwhile, I can certainly see why Bale called him a barbarian. He kills four people for vaguely defined reasons while not giving a single care in the world, and terrorises a city. And that's BEFORE the plagues arrive. In fact, because of one scene involving Ramesses after a certain plague, I sympathise more with him than I do Moses. With Moses, the lines between freedom fighter and terrorist definitely get muddled.

Other characters are virtually footnotes and not really worth talking about. So, actually it shouldn't really matter that the characters are portrayed by white people because they barely register as characters and more like furniture. Sigourney Weaver, drastically underused. I actually keep forgetting Ben Kingsley is in this. In fact, with the exception of Moses and Ramesses, you will forget everybody's names. That is a promise. There is one scene where Moses and Ramesses are talking, then three other characters come in, you have no idea who they are, their roles are mentioned once, and then are never seen again.

So on top of all that, you'd never guess the story feels lacking. Seriously there's a huge battle in the first ten minutes that was so boring. I haven't felt this bored watching action scenes since the last Resident Evil film. Then this film jumps around the place, making this film feel rushed, despite being over two hours. And then, along with the "trying to find scientific reasons" thing, this film feels quite modern at times. This includes Ramesses saying he won't free the slaves because it's economically impossible. Then again, the film also has horse mounted archers...four hundred years early. But there are some fantastic shots of the scenery and the plagues.

So yeah, if you want to see a film which has spectacular imagery and/or you're a big Ridley Scott fan, then this is your film. But, for the most part, it's just underwhelming, and that's the biggest shame about this film. Oh it probably still would have been bad, but it would have been enjoyable at least. Everything feels lacking, from the acting to the action to the story, so it feels like a chore just to get invested in the film. Just, just stick to watching 'The Prince of Egypt'.