‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’ Review: A Fragile Balancing Act: Source: The Moviefone Blog:– When the entire span of Ridley Scott‘s career is finally written about, it’s tough to say where a film like “Exodus: Gods and Kings” will stand. On the one hand, it’s a big, brash, big-budget retelling of an ancient Biblical tale, a story of such big proportions that no less a titan than Cecil B. DeMille made two distinct versions of the Hebrews-out-of-Egypt story. On the other hand, it’s a film that doesn’t lend itself to hyperbolic enthusiasm, the way Scott’s “Alien,” “Blade Runner” or “Thelma and Louise” did. I’m no fan of “Gladiator,” but it’s fair to say that it provided a template for Ridley’s later work — mixing high drama, big action sequences and a visual flair that owed as much to early Hollywood extravaganzas as it did to latter-day adventure films. It may be because I watched it only the week before, but the film that seems most connected to “Exodus” may be his 2004 journey to the Jerusalem of the Middle Ages. “Kingdom of Heaven” echoes many similar themes, from the ambivalent nature of organized religion and the challenge of balancing the needs of the spirit with the pragmatic requirements of leadership. Yeah, yeah, but is it better than Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah“? I hated that movie! Well, that’s a bit harsh. Yeah, in some ways “Noah” actually feels kind of Scott-ish. You’ve got Russell Crowe in the lead, the palate is austere, and there’s loads of atmospheric rain to give it a sodden look. “Exodus” does kind of feel like part of the same, and not just for Pentateuchal reasons. Instead of physical models, split-screen photography and glass matte paintings, both films are modern, CGI-laden epics that differ only slightly from their superhero or fantasy compatriots. Yet Aronofsky allowed for a sense of fantasy and myth (how else are you going to build an Ark except with giant rock creatures?); Scott does the opposite, injecting a scientific rationality to explain some of the more remarkable occurrences. It doesn’t quite work, since at some point there’s a collision between the mythic elements of the original and the attempts to make it a secular telling. Still, I applaud the effort, and particularly enjoyed the cheeky-yet-provocative way that Scott disposes of both cynical sage and soothsayer, proving, after all, regardless of faith or education, we’re all equally fragile. Right. But why is “Batman” playing Moses? He seems kinda pale for a Hebrew from a few thousand years ago. Yeah, well, there’s that. There’s been much gnashing online about the casting of the film, and from a performance point of view at least it partially works. Bale does his loony leader thing in a way that’s pleasing, but I guess I’m becoming cynical and jaded about these types of roles for him, simply not finding him quite as intoxicating onscreen as I did back when he handed out “bone” business cards (plus, don’t get me started on the awesomeness of “Newsies.” No, really, don’t). Again, it’s interesting for those who’ve been vocal about this aspect to contrast the efforts Scott went through in “Kingdom of Heaven” to create a relatively diverse cast. I’ll let you make the call on how much of an issue this will be. I mean, Sigourney Weaver as the Pharoah’s mom? Really? Um, sure. She’s only in the film for a second, and this may be one of the film’s problems — despite it’s over-two-hour running time, it both feels too long and not long enough. There’s lots for Scott and his collaborators to get through, and it feels like it should either be a slick 90 minutes or some gargantuan, 10 hour mega-epic. OK, now you’re being silly. All I really want to know is: how are the plagues? Pretty cool, actually. Again, they try to actually make a bit more plausible this aspect of the story, just as they provide explanations for the Red Sea’s parting. Sure, the tenth plague is a bit of a head-scratcher, but it’s just one among many aspects of the film that vacillates between the seemingly equal and non-contradictory possibilities that Moses is a concussed lunatic or a prophet of a vengeful Lord. So, worth seeing? Well, this is a super busy time at the cinemas, and there’s loads of sublime films that are vying at the end of the year to encourage award voters to check out their wares. This isn’t one of those films — despite its occasional portentous air, “Exodus” ain’t awards bait. It has ambitions to be a smart action film, a provocative presentation of myth with a dash of verisimilitude to make it both edgy and interesting. “Exodus” may not be the best thing in theatres, but it’s decent enough to make it worth your time. It’s less dreary and pointless than “Prometheus,” for one, and showcases during its moments of battles some of the fun and splendour that Scott has occasionally shown a flair for like few others. “Exodus: Gods and Kings” is now playing in theatres. Continue Reading….. ift.tt/12WvpbO
Posted on: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 17:10:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015