[d3code]

saw it yesterday and have to say. this movie is very dissapointing.

not just story wise, but the 3D.

some shots have very nice depth and you see lot of detail. however some shots look like they have been shot by an amateur.

for example, there is a shot when Bale is talking. ( middle ) the background is fuzzy since the focus is on bale. however the guy bale is talking to |( foreground ) stays fuzzy as well. so basicly the back of a head you see in your left view. but since focus is on only Bale ( middle ) the foreground and backgroud is fuzzy. it gives a very bad 3D presentation.

now this mistake does not happen 1 time. it happens like 3 or 4 times. now i am far from an expert and i cant even walk in the same shoes as ridley if it is about shooting a movie. but these are very amateur mistakes. even if bale is talking to someone have the 3D camera positioned infront of the other guy. that way we dont have to see a fuzzy head, while bale talks into the camera.

so basicly you have some nice 3D shots of a valley. the effects in 3D are ok. however if you know the story of moses you expect some great effects and 3D near the end. well that does not happen much either.

in this case i would rent this movie first before you blind buy it like i did.

 

[NSX1992]

I have to disagree as I thought the 3D was excellent. The parting of the Red Sea was spectacular as hundreds of chariots were drowned by the huge wave. The movie had lots of special effects and appeared to be an expensive production.

 

[film113]

Also have to wonder if the fuzziness referred to is also present on the 2D version.

 

[d3code]

Spoiler

there is no parting of the red sea. at the beginnig of the sea the water just goes away a bit, then later on their is suddenly a tidal wave. it was terrible done.

 

[Deja Vu]

This movie left me shaking my head -- what were they thinking?

Rent before you buy!

 

[Jedi2016]

It's Ridley Scott.. he's been kind of off lately. In general, I mean, I actually think his use of 3D is very well done, of the conservative "window" variety without the gimmicks. That may be more down to the cinematographer, though. Exodus in general just wasn't a very good movie, IMO.

 

[old corps]

I was excited about this one until I read the reviews. Sounds like a real stinker, think I'll pass.


Ed

 

[TyTimp]

The movie had lots of special effects and appeared to be an expensive production.

This is the problem with Hollywood. They believe expensive and flashy effects = good. This is how they sell tickets today. Gone are the days of a good story and characters.

 

[teachsac]

Yeap. Nothing better than "The Greatest Story Ever Told", "Cleopatra", "Lawrence of Arabia", etc.


S~

 

[william06]

I just watched it blind buy. Not one of the best or worst. There seemed to be some bad editing, although pretty long could have been longer to fill in the choppy gaps. Even though we know the story. I thought the quality of the 3D blu Ray was great no complaints from me there . In short I would recommend as a rental or buy used

 

[d3code]

I just watched it blind buy. Not one of the best or worst. There seemed to be some bad editing, although pretty long could have been longer to fill in the choppy gaps. Even though we know the story. I thought the quality of the 3D blu Ray was great no complaints from me there . In short I would recommend as a rental or buy used

i agree too, some very bad editting as well. it just puzzles me, that someone as experienced as ridley, could make such a bad movie. this is more a movie that was made by Paul W.S.Anderson ( the guy who made those alien vs predator movies )

watching 1 time is just bareble. but you would need to pay me to watch it a second time.

 

[Don Landis]

Sorry to hear that. I have it coming in tomorrow. Also, Hobbit 3.

 

[teachsac]

Just watched it this afternoon. A million times better than Noah (movie wise).


S~

 

[Worf]

It's Ridley Scott.. he's been kind of off lately.

I dunno, I liked the Halo series he produced. Thought that was fairly well done. (The Blu-Ray of which also came out the same week) Alas, no 3D, though I don't think there would be much to offer.

 

[rekbones]

Saw this Sat in 3D, biggest waste of 2.5 hrs in a long time. I will take the 1959 remastered BR of the Ten Commandments over this anytime.

 

[Don Landis]

We watched it last night and liked it. I thought the 3D was well done with great scenes of expanded depth on a wide scale. The sound stage was above average in 7.1 but not quite up to the precise placement that I have in Big Hero 6 and most of the more recent Disney productions.

As for the story, I can see how this would be boring to many, especially if not familiar with the Biblical source. It lost something in the beginning for me since the story of how Moses got to where he was as a young adult was not included. The battles in the beginning were lost due to no reason for them given. All this caused the story to get off to a slow start even though the action was well done cinematically. I was actually disappointed that the story ended when it did so that was disappointing. It was almost like they ran out of film. The Biblical story doesn't end where this film did but then I suppose the title would need to be changed to "Moses" not "Exodus"

As for comparing to the original "Ten Commandments," I'll take this one because the entire production was 21st century level of sophistication. Maybe the story was more complete then but the film production of "Exodus" was better.

 

[SFMike]

I too thought the 3D was well done on this picture and worth seeing in depth. Like many Ridley Scott movies the script could have used more work but the visuals are really stunning.

 

[Immersion22]

Watched it today. Picture quality and 3D are very good. No gimmicks popouts but good depth and foreground. Although not always. There some scenes that are flat.