Exodus: Gods and Kings

Released:  December 12^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  20^th Century Fox

Starring:  Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, Ben Mendelsohn, Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley

Directed by:  Ridley Scott

Written by:  Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine, Steven Zaillian

Personal Bias Alert:  likes epics, kind of a Ridley Scott fan

5.5 of 10

            Twenty-two films into Ridley Scott’s career, I think we’ve largely sussed out his strengths and weaknesses.  He handles massive scales and eye-popping visuals with the best of them, but if you’re more interested in subtle character development and unexpected plot twists, then he’s probably not your man.  Sure, he’s made a few movies that break that mold, but Exodus:  Gods and Kings is not among them.  For better or for worse, it’s a Ridley Scott movie through and through, and undoubtedly it’s not his best work.

            I think I understand why Scott made another entry in the Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt films.  There’s the obvious reasons, like it’s a tremendous story with a built-in audience that includes pretty much every member of the Abrahamic religions, but there’s several stories to choose from in that well (see this year’s Noah for another example).  No, I think it has more to do with the brotherly conflict that Scott chose to play up.  Remember, Ridley’s brother Tony killed himself two years ago, and I imagine that the loving but combative relationship between pseudo brothers Moses and Ramses would appeal to someone dealing with that kind of loss. 

            That the story takes place in a time when wonders like the pyramids were being built was just an added bonus.  Let’s face it, Scott seems to like making epics, and few societies can rival the scale that Egypt was operating in at the time.  After seeing his depiction of the Romans in Gladiator, it was hard not to get excited about what Scott would show us in Exodus.  Half-built pyramids with a massive labor force scrambling up their sides is awe-inspiring on the big screen, and then you get to see the ten plagues and the parting (and closing) of an entire sea.  Scott and his team knock all these visuals out of the park, making the spectacle factor the main reason people should go out and see this film in theaters.

            Unfortunately, that’s pretty much the only aspect of this film that exceeds average quality.  A bloated, two and a half hour runtime is sure to make everyone’s toes tap with boredom, especially during the long first act that spends a lot of time setting up very basic plot points.  It’s safe to assume that most people already know the nuts and bolts of this story, so you better be adding in some interesting flourishes to keep your audience sitting there that long, which Exodus resolutely fails to do.  To make it worse, this rendition is remarkably devoid feeling.  I mean, an entire slave force is freed in this movie, which should be an inspiring and emotional achievement.  Instead, the Israelites plod towards their homeland with the fatalistic energy most people bring on their trips to the dentist.  Even without taking into account the mood, the ending just doesn’t work.  It spends several minutes trailing off, I guess trying to wrap up arcs that were never really established in the first place, and then just fades to black.  It’s one of the worst endings I’ve seen all year.  It feels like someone in the editing room just shrugged and walked away because they were sick and tired of trying to pound this monstrosity into a story.

            The other unfortunate aspect of this film’s energy-sucking quality is that it takes all the performances down with it.  Granted, the characters aren’t particularly well-written in the first place, particularly the petulant Ramses and his barely present mother inexplicably played by Sigourney Weaver.  I can only speculate, but I’m guessing the role was edited down à la Eva Green’s Sibylla in Kingdom of Heaven, otherwise I have no clue why Weaver would sign on for a bit part.  Joel Edgerton lacks the power needed to pull off the god-king Ramses, but what really surprised me was how flat Christian Bale was as Moses.  This is the same guy who made velvet suits and a wicked comb over work in American Hustle, and here he’s floundering in a basic reluctant hero role.

            I know I’m bashing on the story pretty hard, but there was one aspect that I really appreciated.  The depiction of God and his relationship with Moses wasn’t clean.  This is the nasty God of the Old Testament, the kind that lets his chosen people live in slavery for 400 years and then gets huffy when he finally shows up and things don’t move along fast enough.  Moses calls him out on stuff like this, and even if the screenwriters don’t come up with very original responses, at least the questions are raised.

            All that being said, I can’t say I regret seeing Exodus:  Gods and Kings.  I wish it wasn’t so long, that the story was told with more verve, and the title wasn’t so clunky, but Ridley Scott’s so darn good at putting on a spectacle that you inevitably will get a thrill or two if you go see it on the big screen.  Just make it a matinee, preferably the cheapest ticket you can get.

Other Notes:

Ø  Is this movie setting itself up for a sequel?  They could call it Joshua:  We Finally Get There.

Ø  Moses’s privileged upbringing made him excellent at throwing rocks in a pot.

Ø  What’s up with all the horse killing?

American Psycho (2000)

2 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  fine with extreme violence, fine with allegorical storytelling, disliked “Fight Club”

            I must admit up front that I went into “American Psycho” with very low expectations.  What I knew of it reminded me very much of “Fight Club,” a movie I think succumbs to its violent trappings and fails to get it’s metaphor across.  That remains true for “American Psycho,” but what I didn’t suspect was how bad the central metaphor would be and how irritated I would be by the finished product.

            “American Psycho” follows New York banker Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), a wealthy man with a secret night life.  He attends dinners at fancy restaurants, wears expensive suits, and maintains an impeccable physique not because he derives any pleasure from these activities, but because it flaunts his elite social status.  While mostly indifferent to other people, their occasional challenges to his perceived superiority cause him to go into fits of rage and homicide.  He tries to keep this hidden, killing at night and in controlled situations, but as the feelings build he begins to take more and more risks.

            The whole movie, like the book it is based on, is an allegory for the consumerism that runs rampant in our culture.  Everything in it is representative of the theme, and realism is thrown out the window.  The characters are shallow, self-obsessed people that we’re supposed to hate.  The narration is straightforward and preachy.  The sets are decadent and inhospitable (I can’t imagine anyone actually living in those apartments).  Everything hinges on the allegory working, but the ideas behind it are simply too banal to warrant the nastiness it puts on the screen.

            Rampant consumerism had been discussed for decades preceding the books release in 1991.  The society in Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel “Brave New World” revolved around it.  The characters in Evelyn Waugh’s 1930 novel “Vile Bodies” are consumed by status seeking.  Emile Henry Gauvreau, who died in 1956, once said “I was part of that strange race of people aptly described as spending their lives doing things they detest, to make money they don't want, to buy things they don't need, to impress people they don't like.”  That quote is an almost perfect description of the characters in this film/book, and it was delivered before the author was even born.

            Granted, a film or book doesn’t have to make a novel point.  It does, however, become a problem when it’s the selling point of the entire story.   When you’ve gone out of your way to make everything in the film as grating as it is in “American Psycho,” that central metaphor has to carry the audience’s interest.  Because that metaphor is so poor, anyone familiar with this theme will find little to be interested in.

            The nail in the coffin (or in the back of the head) is the film’s ending.  This is a massive SPOILER ALERT, because I’m about to reveal in detail the ending.  Throughout the film, there are suggestions that Bateman might not be sound of mind.  By the end, he seems to have a full mental breakdown.  He causes a police car to explode just by shooting it with a handgun, and an ATM machine tells him to feed it a cat.  Even in the reality of this film, neither of those things could happen.  It clearly points to Bateman’s unstable mental state, and although the filmmakers make it clear that he did kill all those people, it makes it feel like they pulled a punch.  The horrific things Bateman does is supposed to represent the horrible things people are capable of doing when they get blinded by their desire to acquire things.  Adding the idea that Bateman is crazy, even if it was the consumerist culture that drove him crazy, still transfers some of the guilt to his disjointed mind and lessens the metaphor.

            With such a weak idea behind it, the extreme nature in which the metaphor is told feels unearned.  The violence, sex, and dark humor feels like a mask, a desperate attempt to make a simple idea feel like more than it is.  With no other redeeming qualities, the film actually angered me, and not in the way that it wanted.

            Other Notes:

Ø  You can make an interesting story about a despicable character while still getting across a unique worldview.  Read Albert Camus’s “The Stranger.”  No punches pulled there.

Ø  I recognize that the actors and crew did what was asked of them.  This mess isn’t their fault.

Ø  Maybe I just don’t like transgressive fiction.

Ø  Are yuppies the ‘80s version of hipsters?