Exodus: Gods and Kings - Movie Review

            In the past decade, we have started to have trends in film. For a few years, there will be one or more “trends” going on in the type of movies that are being made. Granted, there will be many other films not in one of these categories. But multiple movies will be in one “trend” in a year. In the past few years, we have had more and more indie biblical films. But in this year, we now have two biblical major motion pictures - Noah and Exodus: Gods and Kings. With Exodus being a $140 million Ridley Scott epic, a new trend is being set in motion.

            Exodus: Gods and Kings follows the biblical story of Moses (Christian Bale), who is a Hebrew in Egypt, but not among those enslaved by the Egyptians. He is actually living with the royalty in the country and is being treated so. Although he was born a slave, he is believed to be the prince’s cousin. There are very few that know this, and Moses is not one of them. But when word gets out that Moses actually is a Hebrew, the prince (now the pharaoh) who had believed Moses to be his cousin for all his life, Ramses (Joel Edgerton), is forced to banish him, although the two had grown up close as brothers and been close for all their lives. When this happens, Moses seeks the help of the Hebrew God to help free his people.

            In the role of Moses, Christian Bale does a very good job. His performance is oftentimes sympathetic, and he’s able to create a general understanding of his actions. He gets every emotional cue and hits them well. Joel Edgerton is also impressive in the movie. Like Bale, he is able to create an understanding; but for him, it’s interesting, due to the fact that he is technically the villain of the movie. He does make sense at times, however. And that is due to the writing and the acting; the script actually sets up its two main characters well, and, for the most part, I liked the directions it took them in. The actors made sure to transfer these emotions to the screen in their roles, and they worked well together, too.

            Of course, like most of Ridley Scott’s movies, this one looks great. The cinematography, costume design, production design, etc. seem to have been taken to painstaking measures in order to engross the audience into this time period and location. And they do that. It’s great to look at and Scott makes sure that we see this entire place with his huge, wide shots. This non-minimalistic style makes all of the visual elements of the film more impressive and ensures the success of the effects in the movie.

            Scott is also able to take the camera during the scenes and create a sort of atmosphere that is present in many of his movies, especially Gladiator. He captures tone well in his direction and uses it to sometimes add entertainment to the movie. He succeeds in that here. However, he only exceeds to a certain extent…

            My compliments on the film now dwindle and then disappear. This is a very flawed movie that very much should not have been coming out in December. It succeeds in spectacle but fails in most everything else. As I said, I did like the direction it took the characters in; but after a while, they went the same clichéd way most do. I liked the initial direction they went in because I could understand both sides. But it got to a point when it was so familiar I knew exactly how it would play out.

            The overall script is not so great. With its four writers, there are inconsistencies, sudden jumps to a completely different scene, conflicting styles of dialogue, and poorly built scene structures. It seemed like there were communication issues between these writers; it seems like there was no working together on this project. Sometimes it takes up a minimalistic style of writing when things must be inferred and the dialogue is not very thick. Sometimes it takes up a style that draws out scenes and portions of the film. It jumps back and forth between these two. But each style doesn’t work its function and actually shows only its flaws. When minimalism is used, depth in the story is lost. When non-minimalism is used, enjoyment is lost due to the dullness that arises. There will be gaps where scenes could be, then a long stretch of boring scenes that don’t have much to do with character development, the plot, or anything.

            The dialogue itself doesn’t add much to the movie either. Most of it is there because there needs to be dialogue. It doesn’t seem like the writers explored the different ways they could make it interesting. And even when a change in the writing style occurs, the dialogue just seems like a plot tool and nothing more. When the audience needs to learn something about a character in order for them to understand something about the plot, there will be a quick line to them that. This is a very lazily written movie.

            And although Scott does a good job with tone, he does not do a good job with pacing. There were large portions of the film where I was bored. I was not interested in anything going on; and although that is partly the writers’ fault, Ridley Scott is at fault here as well. His directing style is so repetitive and overly-consistent that, although I knew it was a different scene, it seemed like the same scene over and over again.

            Although it does have some cool elements and it does not disappoint in spectacle, Exodus: Gods and Kings is a very disappointing movie. It is not a good epic, and although it’s not bad, it is pretty boring for sections of the movie. The script is poor and the direction has issues. It’s not a movie I’d recommend.