User Reviews

I just now watched this movie after not watching it because of all the negative reviews. EG&K isn't that bad of a movie, it wasn't a great movie but it is a sum equal to its parts. Ridley Scott's films are typically more story-driven than character-driven. The plot happens just to move the story along and I think this is where the movie fails because of the character Moses and the need to really flesh out his inner conflict. The story had its touching moments like the ones between Moses and his wife. It was horribly miscast though and didn't need A-listers to promote the film as Moses is a big enough story of its own that people would have seen it for that reason alone. The cartoon was much better in my opinion.

/ /

While visually quite impressive the performances are bland and story departures unwelcome.

Exodus Un film réalisé par Ridley Scott (Gladiator Commençons par les choses qui fâchent :( Un casting spécial. Un des Pharaons a déjà incarné un rôle ou il se fait uriner dessus par un transformeurs et/ou il passe du temps à rire. Incarné un Pharaon ne lui va pas du tout.... Le plus dramatique dans ce film c'est qu'il n'est pas dramatique. La gestion de l'IMPACT des différentes catastrophes est catastrophique. Seulement la dernière catastrophe est bien amener, mais pour autres, les catastrophes se passe, on voit clairement les conséquences, mais que très peux le moment "avant la catastrophe". Bref je trouve ce film un peu vide. Une 3D qui met très peu en avant la 3D c'est dommage Les belles choses :) Le film est très bien réalisé les angles de vue sont majestueux les villes sublimes et l’immensité égyptienne somptueusement retranscrite, j'imagine. Les catastrophes qui sont terribles, mais seulement à l'image. Les musiques ne sont perçues que dans les moments intimes. Peux être un peut plus sinon elle reste bonne. Conclusion: étant donné que c'est un film qui est très tourné ver "la Fois" je peux déterminer qu'il ne plaira pas à tout le monde surtout dans les conditions actuelles...

There's a reason Atheists shouldn't make Bible stories. I mean, you might as well make a movie about Obama being a white person. That's how off this movie is with the real story! Sure "The 10 Commandments" was off but it kept the overall storyline and the spirit of the story. This travesty just craps all over the real story.

At first I thought was legit good, but then thinking back on it, I realized it's not that good. This could have been the biggest biblical movie ever made, but instead this is just a middle of the road film.

Christian Bale plays Moses like mad max. Too much reliance of CGI for the various plagues, and not enough exploration about the main themes from the bible. Joel Edgerton playing Pharaoh stole the show.

Whoever did the casting needs to be barred from ever having to do such choices again. Though it probably was a very deliberate production choice. The actors who accepted to play in this joke lost pretty much all their credit in the process.

I've seen many incarnations of the Moses story, Exodus is just weak. Exodus is very sluggish at times the story comes to a pause with some long and boring scenes that serve no purpose, and a lot of inaccuracies Moses never got married and had children. And overall just weak scenes, the scene with the burning bush and "god" comes to speak to him Moses has never heard of God at this point and he asks the child "Who are you?" child God answers "I am" then the scene closes, how does "I am" explain to Moses who God is? Then afterwards Moses magically knows everything about God, to anyone that's never heard of God "I am" is far from helpful. Now another useless God scene with the child comes along again, why are they screaming at each other for no reason? Very useless dialog then the scene closes, then the movie jumps to the painting of the blood on the doorways, how did Moses receive these instructions when child God never told him to do it? This movie is filled with many more inaccuracies and I was just confused most of the time, a lot of this movie doesn't even make any sense. The most random moment was when Moses was walking back to his horse after meeting with Ben Kingsley then two men shout "Look a slave!" at Moses then attack him, then Moses kills them then goes back to his horse like nothing ever happened, Moses is still a general at the time. And why is Moses slaughtering everyone? He never killed anyone after he fled. A very weak and confusing movie.

Tries way to hard to be an epic remake for an epic story and falls flat with monotone acting and shallow intensity. Not to mention, Ridley Scott's portrayal of Moses was simply terrible, as his character was mostly faithless and bland.

Visually stunning - maybe the best storm graphics I've seen in a movie - and the story sporadically hits, but Exodus is largely a hollow affair. The two leads carry it the best they can.

Ridley Scott's rendering of the Book of Exodus serves up most of the spectacular highlights of the biblical tale. 2014 marks the resurgence of the Old Testament at the movies. After Darren Aronofsky turned to Genesis to unleash Noah, Ridley Scott moves forward to the Book of Exodus to revisit the story of Moses. Exodus: Gods and Kings is this century’s answer to Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments, but it already looks to be more controversial than that pious 1956 opus. Spectacularly filmed and intermittently well acted, though not quite as much campy fun as the DeMille version, the picture looks likely to attract a substantial audience even if some religious leaders voice protests. Scott did a great job reviving the Roman sword-and-sandals epic when he made the Oscar-winning Gladiator. This Egyptian saga is not quite in the same league, but it confirms the director’s flair for widescreen imagery. Exodus has the added kick of 3D technology, and it has enough eye-popping set pieces to please adventure fans. Unlike the DeMille rendering, this one does not begin at the beginning but plunges us into the middle of the action, with Moses (Christian Bale) as an adult in the royal court. We eventually learn the backstory of how the Jewish child managed to find a home among the kings, but we’re introduced to him as a warrior and best friend of Ramses (Joel Edgerton). The first part of the movie cribs rather shamelessly from Gladiator, which began by sketching the rivalry between the emperor’s son and his favorite warrior. Here the aging Pharaoh, played by John Turturro, prefers his adopted son Moses to his own son Ramses. This tortured family drama was performed much more persuasively in Gladiator by Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix and Richard Harris. Despite an excess of mascara, Turturro is sympathetic, but he doesn’t fit all that comfortably into ancient Egypt. An early battle scene against the Hittites, modeled very closely on the climactic battle scene between Arabs and Turks in Lawrence of Arabia, suggests that Moses is the superior warrior, which prepares for his eventual banishment once Ramses succeeds his father on the throne. But the friendship between the two soldiers is not well established in the opening scenes, so the film stumbles out of the gate. Four writers — Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine and Oscar winner Steven Zaillian — are credited with the screenplay, and they haven’t been able to craft an elegant narrative from the biblical text. The dialogue is often cringe-worthy, as when a surly Moses tells God, “Nice of you to come.” When Moses learns his true identity, he is reluctant to play the role of savior, and he finds a comfortable home in a remote village, where he marries and has a son. But his destiny calls when he comes upon the famous burning bush and is approached by God to lead his people out of slavery. Here is the film’s most controversial choice, for God appears to Moses as a fierce child. Although this may offend some devout viewers, it’s actually far more interesting than the booming offscreen voice that DeMille used in his version of the story. This divine child seems angry and vengeful rather than a benign Buddha figure, but one could argue that this is in keeping with the Old Testament God of wrath. The film hits its peak in the sequence recounting the 10 plagues. The savage crocodiles were not in the Old Testament, but as they attack humans as well as fish, they turn the Nile blood red, which is at least an ingenious explanation of how the river might have turned to blood. Frogs, boils and locusts are truer to the text and are rendered in luscious visual detail. The climactic chase to the Red Sea is equally spectacular. Although The Ten Commandments won the Oscar for its visual effects, the parting of the Red Sea in DeMille’s film was laughably tacky. Scott comes up with a somewhat more credible portrayal of how the Israelites managed to cross the sea before a monumental storm drowned the Egyptians. This sequence is visually thrilling. The movie should have ended there, but Scott and the writers seem to have felt obliged to include a few of the later parts of the story, including the delivery of the Ten Commandments and a scene of an aged Moses finally arriving near the land of Canaan. But while these events are integral to the biblical story, they come off here as the worst kind of anticlimax. Don’t expect any acting nominations for the picture. Bale garbles a few too many of his lines, but he has an imposing physical presence. No movie with such a limp ending can be fully satisfying, and the beginning also falters. But the long middle section is a rousing good show. Ridley Scott shows off his gifts as director, but the script and some of the actors let him down.

This movie lacks 99% of Biblical facts and I wonder why they went on ahead producing it . the director should really be ashamed of himself. I'm really sorry that my favorite actors like Christian Bale and Ben Kingsley had to play part in it.

Exodus: Weaks and Fails. Usually, it doesn't get any worse than how I see it when it should've been better before we all doubt that it could've been worse.

Its not the Story which is bad and not true according to the history, its just.. that they use actors, really well known actors, that the begining of the movie seems to be a comedy... common, really? what is that!!! but what is also a bit freightend is the zionist undertone, and i say zionist not jewish, complet different things for me. Really Mister Scott, At least you could use actors which no one knows, and without british accent :p

Getting past the obvious issues that Scott willfully to decided to cast white actors in the roles of Egyptians for no good reason, this movie's problems go beyond that. They spent a whole lot of time on Moses getting married and having a child and still we weren't able to have any particular connection to them, nor did I really figure out why Moses began to truly care for the Hebrews in this. The editing forced a jump from his lack of caring to willingness to leave his family of 9 years behind in a matter of minutes. Only an epic movie because of the vast amounts of CGI used to make grand looking scenes of disaster, but that doesn't make it good.

Substitute Christian Bale for Charles Heston, with updated directing and CGI and you get an idea of this film. I am not very religious but always loved seeing the Ten Commandments as a kid, and this is a pretty decent modernization of it. I thought it might be too "biblical" and thus silly, but actually maintains a certain realistic sense of events, which I was not expecting and was definitely more appreciating for an atheist who grew up as catholic, appreciating the story, and the original film. He did a great job capturing a retelling of the story, without nonsensical biblical stuff, but that of course means it wont please the religiously fervent, nor the anti-religious who want nothing to do with any of it. For someone of my background however, (Catholic but now agnostic/atheist) I thought it was great.

The only way this gets a positive rating is if it's NOT compared to the classic "Ten Commandments", otherwise it's a shameful, waste of a remake. I barely got halfway through it before pulling the plug on its awfulness.

There is no escaping the dreadful monotonous first hour of Exodus: Gods and Kings. Thanks to a better made second half the movie becomes an average one at best.

Great movie!! Good reminder of Passover. The movie had the epic scene of the parting of the Red Sea and the burning bush was really cool too! It must be pretty powerful for that little kid to play G-d. That was a pretty big role and shoes to fill for him. The 10 plagues were pretty intense especially when they got to smiting of the first born.

Exodus: Gods and Kings is another swords and sandals epic from master-director Ridley Scott. But it's one without any battles or climactic end conflict. It's all tease and no pay-off. Worse still, the movie makes you empathize with the villain too much. I wanted Rameses to catch and murder Moses and his entire rabble by the end of the movie! What a bizarre failure.

An English teacher leads a double life as a gambler. When he owes big, he borrows from a gangster and offers his own life as collateral, immersing himself in an illicit underground world that could cost him his life. Wahlberg never convinces as an English teacher and the film never seems to gain enough momentum to warrant the viewers interest. Dialogue heavy, and with an inflated sense of its own self importance, its a hard slog to get to an unsatisfying conclusion

ok overall movie was entertaining but as a biblical rendition of moses i say it hit some key points but it did not hit everything it needed. if you are going to do an interpretation of a story that is writen centurys ago do it right make parts to it no matter what religon you are. i give it a five out of ten foe the effort and i would like to see a ten commandments movie.

Efectos especiales decentes, pero que alguien detenga la producción de historias bíblicas, desperdicio de talento al por mayor, esta película esta tan muerta como el Mar Muerto.

Exodus: Gods and Kings works as a spectacle of 3D special effects and lush cinematography. However, it fulfills this at the cost of the complexity of it's source material, thus creating a final product that it all style no substance despite the classic source material it is based on.

When I heard about this movie I thought "oh boy, another rip off version of a Bible story". To my surprise I was wrong. It showed the cinema side of a classic childhood story. People say that this movie is terrible, I disagree.

I gave it a 4. Sorry Ridley, but when Moses reaches the Red Sea, i want to see him bang the sand with his stick and part the **** sea with MAGIC. Great visuals, but you really blew this one,

This movie is really a 6.5 or 7 but so many people gave it an unfair score. I watched this movie through and I liked it. It was a bit slow at times. All you bible thumpers upset that they changed the story a bit can **** it.. Ask yourself how many big blockbuster movies come out about God? There are probably people out there who never knew the story and now they do...

It is not as bad as some people are saying. Leaving aside this is a sci-fi film (as everything that has anything to do with the Bible) the film looks amazing as we all expected. Ridley Scott knows how to offer spectacle. The actors are not bad in it, Christian Bale is very good in fact. The biggest problems are probably that a story like this is not appealing anymore and the obvious white-washing that happened during the casting. Just entertainment with lots of money on screen, especially for the people who enjoy these kind of stories.

Ridley Scott gives this telling of the Biblical tale a vibe similar to some of the classic swords & sandals epics that have graced the big screen. It is a lengthy movie. As a result it rushes through some areas it shouldn't have and stays too long in others. It can be a rather mixed affair, but overall it is a solidly entertaining movie. One that is sure to offend many due to the fact that it is based on a religious belief. As you might expect it's not entirely Biblically accurate. It certainly does a better job "Noah" did at sticking close to what the Bible says, but Biblical and historical inaccuracies are to be found. For one it tries too hard to add human reasoning in order to explain the various miracles and plagues God brings on. What we get here is a flawed movie, but one that can still be enjoyable provided people put down their religion or anti-religion related baggage. It can be epic one minute and somewhat boring the next. Yet even in it's slower drawn out moments I still found myself interested in the film. Despite some awkward and underdeveloped plot elements this is a very solid attempt at bringing the story of Moses to the big-screen. It might not get all of the facts right or be all that flawless in execution, but Ridley Scott still has enough good things going on here to make it worth a watch. I give "Exodus: gods and Kings" a 7.5/10.

Ridley Scott's new movie is very much to debate. It is an actual representation of the bible book Exodus, with all the story about Moses. Some things were changed, it was not completely loyal to the book, but that's something to appreciate, the originality and not being bored by the same story again. I actually think the acting choices were really accurate, mainly Christian Bale as Moses, he was really awesome, and the rest of them, they weren't that much, but still good. The movie itself can get to be a little boring in some parts, it is actually difficult to sit through the whole run time, but that is understandable given the fact that this was trying to recreate the story of Moses as good as possible. Itself, the film was boring and long, but had some exciting parts and was as loyal as possible to the Bible, without making some parts too predictable. Real score: 5.6

Before I begin, I'd like to say that I am in fact an atheist, and hence, my review will not be based upon the accuracy of the story line. Instead, I'd like to say that I'm going to go ahead and give this my worst movie of all time award, based solely upon how horrible its acting, dialogue, and production values are/were. They went ahead and got Christian Bale along with Ben Kingston, two decent actors by all accounts. But their performances in this movie are just horrible. Granted, whomever the director was is to blame. Some of their lines are just plain horrible. I, much to the dismay of everyone watching this "film" with me, was laughing constantly. It seemed like it was written by a little kid, and that's at is best. My finial problem is that the movie just doesn't know what it wants to be. It has a bit of shock value, a bit of action, a bit of drama, a bit of everything. AND ALL OF IT IS HORRIBLE. Its bad, Its very bad. Really, we don't need any more of these horrible Bible stories gone action movies. They just turn out to be bad, and thats the extend of it.

Fair warning - this review relates to the filmmaking and story telling, it does not take into consideration references to the bible. As a movie unto itself, it isn' too bad. Some of the graphics / footage leaves a bit to leave desired (especially the swarm of locusts, and then there are the awful crocodiles that looked so fake - I couldn't remember if I was watching Exodus or some version of Sharknado). Scott does get the story he wants to tell across to the audience member - it is just a lot lower standard than his other movies. I wouldn't rush out to see it if I was you....

This is a well known story and I have also seen the '56 movie 'The Ten Commandments'. So in this film could not foresee the modification, but it did in a slight manner like the later 'Noah' movie. The best part was the visuals, the graphics were so good, hard to resist the pleasure if you are vfx geek like me. That's the reason I love modern movie, especially remake of a classic like 'King Kong'. The problem in this flick was lie in the story telling. As we know, Ridley Scott is an excellent narrator, but this movie was too short even though it ran 150 minutes. I felt it was just a brief, I mean there were no details or depth in the important scenes. You will know what I'm saying if you had watched '56 movie I mentioned in a above paragraph. That's drawback for the first timers at a same time advantage for not to fall in boredom for those who have already seen other versions. Christian Bale, awesome; Joel Edgerton, good; Ben Kingsley, never required; Aaron Paul, totally waste. Overall, not cleverly stablised in the scenes that are very important, especially the final one about ten commandments should have been extended a little bit with a moral message. If it was a Peter Jackson movie, definitely it would have been a trilogy with an aggregated time of over 500 minutes. This movie was an entertainer like I enjoyed it than the message deliverer. Must be watched for the amusement and for the pleasure in updating technical aspect of the narration rather than inspiration. 7.5/10

"Exodus: Gods and Kings" 10 Scale Rating: 5.5 (Decent) ... The Good: Visually, the film is fantastic. The sets, backgrounds, and effects were top notch. The first half of the film is also well done. Despite already being well versed on the story, I was entertained and very interested in what was going on. While I still don't see him as Moses, Christian Bale wasn't bad. Joel Edgerton, however, stole the show as Ramses. Despite being the main villain of the movie, you couldn't help but feel a little sorry for him. Edgerton played him perfectly and was well balanced as he shifted back and forth from compassionate and remorseful to enraged and murderous. The Bad: Unfortunately, the film falls apart halfway through. It becomes far less interesting and slows down, which is odd considering that that is the part of the story that is supposed to really take off. While the film starts off with promise, 3/4 of the way through you're just waiting for it to end.

140 million dollars of budget can give you the cheapest CGI you can imagine, along with the faker gold you've ever seen on the silver screen. 140 million dollars can convince Christian Bale, one of the best and most committed actors of his generation, to take on a lead role he obviously didn't respect enough to give it the proper preparation. 140 million dollars can give you Gladiator's plot coated in Bible. What 140 million dollars can't give you is a good film. Literally the only things to be saved from movie hell here are Christian Bale's performance (which is still his worse) and Joel Edgerton's make-up artist. The rest, I don't even know where to begin to complain. Let me try: every single thing that was computer rendered looks fake, especially in the shots of the Egyptian city; the dialogues were laughable and throughout the movie, despite it being that long, you feel like there needs to be an hour more of character development to be comprehensible; the beginning is almost word for word the premise for Gladiator, also by Ridley Scott; the plagues (perhaps the most visually would-be entriguing part) are squeezed into ten minutes; did I mention the gold looks fake? I won't comment on the animosity some people have in regards of the changing of some parts of the "original" story, because that's what happens in every film with the source material. Historically, though, the movie isn't coherent: the action here is supposed to take place around 3000 b.C., at least according to the Bible studies, but Ramses the Great lived nearly 2000 years after that. It may seem like a small mistake, but that's like mistaking George Clinton with Marcus Aurelius. Too much action, too much blubbery dialogues, too much fake gold. Too much money, too much hype, too much dreadlock, too much deus-ex-machina (haha), too much eyelash, too much facial inexpression, too much of everything which sums up in a terrible concoction that tastes of nothing. Shame on you, Ridley Scott, shame on you, cinematographer, shame on you, fx supervisor,

Best watched as a stand-alone Hollywood epic. Ridley Scott deviates substantially from the Biblical story of Moses. Here- Moses has no staff, he's a God-sceptic, he doesn't split the waters, and there's no pillar of fire. Exodus is a loooong yet entertaining epic, with some biblical references. The cinematography, coupled with Christian Bale's performance is fantastic. It's worth a try.

Overtly dragging and long in length but suffocating . The humanizing of a biblical villain ok long have they been marginalized like the enslaved people of Canaan. But why so dragging and unnecessary comedy of pharoses advisors downplays the dense heavy handed emotions of scenes. was Moses talking to god or just to belligerent **** angel I don't know never explained like most Ridley Scott films have dead end plot holes with multitude of contradictory explanations in films.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Though there are some masterful visuals and decent acting on the part of Bale, the rest of the movie last depth, passion, and a well chosen cast. Besides this, Scott needlessly deviates from the Scriptural account. Moses' encounter with Pharaoh, for example, are limited and lack the tension present in the biblical narrative. Scott's choice to depict God as a petulant child is a nasty jab at Christians and Jews as well as poorly a chosen narrative feature; at the same time it both weakens the film and makes for some gross blasphemy

The 2 ½ hour film does its best to tell the whole story of the Exodus properly which, finally, fails to fulfill it. It would be a better idea to focus on just one aspect of the phenomena or cover a smaller part of it. Scott lost the favor of audience by telling a crucial story inaccurately and disappointed the critics by wrapping up a great story.

Oh Ridley Scott why?. Why do you always keep doing this. I know you're a great director, you proved that back in your gold age of films, but now you make such forgettable and mostly terrible films like: Hannibal, Robin Hood, The Counselor and now this. The story is about a Moses as he rises up against the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses, setting 600,000 slaves on a monumental journey of escape from Egypt and its terrifying cycle of deadly plagues. Judging by the trailers of this film I was pretty excited for the movie, because it looks exciting, epic and looks like a lot of fun. Until I sawed the reviews for the film and on RT it had 2.8% and on Metacritic it had about 5.2% and let me just I was really disappointed from hearing that, I thought Ridley Scott finally got his mo jo back but really he hasn't. RANT Time: Once I sawed a article about people complain about the none Egyptian actors playing famous Egyptian as known today, and the director himself has come out and said that he can't work with actors from different county's like Egyptian, because it's to hard work and he doesn't get a long with them. Hearing that I give up on Ridley on this, you can't work with people that are from different country's? I'm sorry but are you not the man who bough us Alien, Gladiator and Blade Runner. Dude your know has the master of directing and you can't work with people from different country's because "It's to hard work", well judging on Alien and Blade Runner which looked really hard to do and probably took a long time to finish. That's easy to you but you don't want to work with people from different country's, F**K you Ridley, but I still love you other movies. Anywhere I still kept a open mind going into this movie, even with the news like that which really bothered me but still maybe the actors might pull it off, and let me just say after viewing the film it's not as bad as the critics are describing it to be, but it's really disappointing. Christian Bale did okay as Moses as Mr. Bale can nail every role his in, but this one is may not incredible but he didn't do a bad job. Joel Edgerton did okay as well. That might sound really uninspiring and not very creative words to use for these two performance, but as I said their performances wasn't incredible or anything special, so yeah I'm sticking to it's okay. The visual effect's were pretty good and the red sea part I have to say was pretty well done. The directing by Ridley once again was pretty damn good, even when I'm not that happy with him for making such a poor decision, he still mangers to win me over. Now for the big problems: The story of Moses and the red sea had to be the most interesting and the most imaginative story I've ever seen, but in this movie it gets over shadowed by the action scenes and to don't get me wrong the action sense were pretty bad-ass, but don't forget you're telling a classic story of Moses. Sigourney Weaver was wasted in this movie and that's just sad to see that, has she is a freaking damn great actress being in roles that just put her talent to waste. Aaron Paul as well was wasted in this movie just like Weaver. Exodus: Gods and Kings has to be the most blandest and the most disappointing movie of this year and I really wanted this movie to be good, but it just turned out to be a disappointment from a director who use to have his spot light.

Possibly Ridley Scott's worst movie. The story and performance of the Prince of Egypt animated movie was actually far superior to this. Ridley's rendition of the story wasn't bad but the overall feel and performances of the movie didn't convince me. It's forgiveable that Biblical movies are almost never going to be 100% accurate due to interpretation or style of director; they may want to focus on some other aspect of the story. There were some parts that weren't bad and the performances were very strong. But it didn't feel consistent. From the trailers, the casting already looked odd. But I thought maybe it shouldn't be that bad after I watch it. I was wrong. After finally watching it was horrible and the characters were unconvincing. The acting wasn't that bad but it didn't match the epicness of a movie like this. It was a good twist to use a child playing "a messenger of God". The kid is talented and has a lot of potential for a kid actor but didn't quite feel right in a movie like this. Christian Bale's performance was better than I expected. Although, I think it would be more powerful if he attached a bit more of Moses' character. Moses actually wasn't a great speaker (he stuttered) and I don't even think he was a general from what I recall. Also, one part that seemed to stand out was his accent didn't seem consistent throughout the movie (especially noticeable in the first dialogue with the "viceroy"). Overall, it didn't have quite an epic feel as I would have expected from Ridley. The effects were **** cinematography captured some of the essence of that era. But overall it wasn't a keeper. Maybe it's just me, but I'm a big Ridley Scott **** just being too harsh. Not his best work anyways.

As of this review I'm glad the Metascore hits the 50-mark scoreline despite many negative reviews I've read from other sites. First of all, if you like religious films with a pitch of action then this is a movie to watch. Christian Bale did a really good job on his character.

Ambitious and epic, Exodus: Gods and Kings has an amazing cast and charming and realistic performances from Bale and Edgerton. It's a delightful welcome surprise from Ridley Scott. It's a visual masterpiece. Stunning and shot beautifully from magnificent landscapes and architectures to epic, thrilling and brutal action scenes to enormous tidal waves and horrific storms. It doesn't fail to disappoint as it concludes with a quality, horrific and awesome third act. It boasts Scott's skill for creating massive and expensive, enjoyable epics like this! It's definitely a great theatre experience and I highly recommend giving this movie a try, even if some believe it's far too long but the movie picks up pace as it goes along. 8/10!

Knowing the source material well, there was very little I enjoyed about this film aside from the costuming. It was inaccurate both biblically and historically and omitted the one element that would have made it something special…God. With that, this film only freed two (2) busted blocks and drowned the others in the Red Sea

It's a decent movie. No it doesn't exactly follow the bible. But im an atheist so I could really care less about that. I honestly just didn't think the film was all that entertaining.

How'd I know the reviews for this movie would be a religious **** I'm going to put all my religious biases aside and try not take offense from the Biblical and historical mishaps on the directors behalf. The acting was great, the CGI looked incredible. Stretching 2 and a half hours long I questioned if I would get bored or distracted as I do with most long movies. This sadly was the base briefly. This was a solid movie. However nothing blew me out the water, asides from the CGI. Which should be expected with a $140 million dollar budget.

Great film. Don't care if they are all white. This is Hollywood. The location, scenarios, special effect were a complete delight. Transforming moses in a real men......amazing. Transforming God in a bully kid.......PERFECT.

Ridley Scott has created epic theater and cinematic adventures with Aliens, Prometheus, Thelma and Louise, and the award winning Gladiator, just to name a few, yet he fails with Exodus: Gods and Kings. Walking into the theater, you would expect to just sit through another retelling of the bible story. Instead you experience it as if you were there yourself. But to experience it once is enough. Exodus: Gods and Kings has been criticized throughout the world, before even being shown in theaters, because Scott has cast white actors in the lead roles while many of the slaves were portrayed otherwise. But not casting recognizable box office stars could have been disastrous. The cast is full of highly known stars such as Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, Ben Kingsley, Aaron Paul, and John Turturro. The movie begins with Moses (Bale, The Dark Knight Trilogy) and Ramses (Edgerton, Zero Dark Thirty) as full grown men seated with Ramses’ father, Seti (Turturro, The Big Lebowski). Moses and Ramses were raised as close as brothers without being blood related and are reminded to have each other’s backs in any sorts of trouble. As we are led into the first big scene with the two brothers going into battle together, we catch a glimpse of Ramses’ animosity towards Moses. He resents the fact that Moses is a king on the battlefield and is aware that Seti favors his sibling. But shortly after, Ramses takes the throne. Ramses hears a rumor that Moses was born a Hebrew and, not having the guts to kill him, has Moses banished from his kingdom. Bale plays Moses as a honorable family man trying to do what is right. He has the heart of a warrior and the patience of a father. Moses is a man who grew up thinking he was Egyptian, later learning and embracing his true identity as one chosen by God. And in Exodus:Gods and Kings, God is portrayed by a young boy. Every moment that 11-year-old actor came on the screen, he stole the scene. The movie takes off from there and we are presented with astonishing shots varying from Ramses’ kingdom, the Egyptian effigies we see in historic photos, and the beautiful Red Sea. But what took my breathe away was the incredible depiction of the deadly plagues. It is hard to believe that Scott actually did not use 20,000 frogs or 100,000 locusts in those realistic and skin-crawling scenes. But with great build up with the plagues, you are presented with a poor CGI tidal wave that comes charging at the soldiers and slaves as they cross the Red Sea. What was supposed to be the climax of the film, turned out to be the disappointment. The film does not thoroughly explain Moses’ past, or basics for the Ten Commandments. Moses was a monumental figure in biblical history, to fully understand Exodus: Gods and Kings, you must go into the movie knowing the bible stories which, in the end, may not work out well for other audience members. While the movie had spectacular scenes from tornados to a bloody river, it did not have the full back story to support. Sadly, Exodus: Gods and Kings did not live up to the hype and did not exceed my expectations.