Posted on 12/17/2014 6:48:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind
English director Ridley Scott is evidently fond of what Hollywood calls “period pieces.” He has had little trouble getting funding for such unlike other directors, no doubt because of his track record with Alien (1979), the cult classic Blade Runner (1982), and Thelma and Louise (1991). The suits felt sufficiently rewarded after they let Scott get into the time machine to make Gladiator (2000), Kingdom of Heaven (2005), and Robin Hood (2010) to let him try again. However, for Exodus: Gods and Kings, now playing at your neighborhood multiplex, Scott had to travel quite a bit farther back.
If you’re used to the DeMille version, The Ten Commandments (1956) with Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner as Moses and Ramses, respectively, what Scott has done will seem better only because of the special effects at the end, which are impressive but not eye-popping. To me it seemed much worse, for reasons I will note shortly. Scott’s take on the Book of Exodus is unlikely to have the sort of run that DeMille’s has enjoyed, which has been shown on TV every year during Easter and Passover since 1973.
To play Ramses, Scott picked a virtual unknown: the Australian Joel Edgerton who had to shave his head for the role and does a creditable job. Not having seen the previews, I only had a vague notion that Christian Bale had been picked to play Moses. My reaction was puzzlement. I instantly remembered that this guy was Batman in The Dark Knight Rises a couple of years ago, which pretty much ruined the show for me. I watched Exodus at first trying to recall what other actor was in what other movie playing what other part.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Well, I'll be. Obama IS God-like! So that's what they meant all along!?
I do find it amusing that conservatives are having a hard time with Hollywood’s depiction of the God of the Old Testament.
Many, many years ago I used to watch a program on PBS that often discussed history, religion, and gods. At the time I was too young and too naïve about the world to realize what I was really hearing. Obviously I didn’t learn from them enough to change my world view, but here I am years later observing how THEIR world view of God has actually informed this particular film.
On that show one often heard them discuss the angry God, the angry, young, jealous God....they viewed this God as one trying to learn to interact with His own creation. And when He did not get His way...the petulant side would arise.
You see, we’re viewing this film from the ‘loving God side,’ not from the liberal side of the early God of the Bible.
God portrayed as a petulant child, no it is not shocking if you know the culture that informed that view.
According to a review from Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/12/12/exodus-gods-and-kings-review-nolte
“Where Charlton Heston’s Moses demanded that Ramses “Let my people go!”, Christian Bale’s Moses — and this is no joke — demands that Ramses pay his slaves a living wage and make them — again, no joke — citizens. DeMille’s Moses was a liberator. Ridley Scott’s Moses is a community organizer agitating for executive action on the minimum wage and amnesty.”
The last few “Biblical” movies that the Leftist propaganda artists have turned out have been nothing short of insulting.
Will they do one on Mohammed (piss be upon him)? Doubt it...
I’ll give it a miss, as I did “Noah”.
When I want creativity, talent, and good scripts, I go to a Pixar movie.
Only takes looking at the first three Commandments to come to that conclusion. Any “loving” God would have made the murder commandment 1st. The final Commandment of a loving God would have said treating each other well would honor Me, as we were made in His image.
Hollyweird doesn't do ANY Christian movie very well because the entire milieu around Hollyweird is, basically, ANTI-Christian. The Catholic Church and Evangelicals have been targets of Hollyweird derision and mocking for quite a while.
A movie on Mohammad WAS done some years ago. One of the themes of the movie was to NOT show Mohammad's face.
It too was a YAWNER.
Ridley needs to stick to sci-fi stuff.
Oh, I remember that one.
They couldn’t even mention Mohammed’s name - they called it “The Prophet”.
Yep. I had forgotten YOUR detail.
Lol. Between the two of us, we have a memory!
Amen to that.
You have a Section 4, I have a Section 4...
together we make a Section 8!
save
That movie got several people killed when some muzzies took over a building in protest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad,_Messenger_of_God
In a film review, The New York Times reported that “when the film was scheduled to premier in the United States another Muslim extremist group staged a siege against the Washington, D.C. chapter of the B’nai B’rith under the mistaken belief that Anthony Quinn played Mohammed in the film, threatening to blow up the building and its inhabitants unless the film’s opening was cancelled.
The standoff was resolved” after the deaths of a journalist and policeman, but “the film’s American box office prospects never recovered from the unfortunate controversy.”[1]
The movie also portrays Noah as a community organizer who really wants Pharoah to give the Hebrew slaves a living wage and full citizenship.
Well, fat chance. Word of mouth has made me unwilling to part with my money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.