govanal
I love the theme music for this film and, with such powerful subject material, I expected an epic. I was sorely disappointed. Opinions of the film often seem to depend on the extent to which the reviewer sympathises with the politics as portrayed. However, setting politics aside, this is a really bad film, condemned to death by wooden acting, stilted dialog and poor direction. When 'Karen' unexpectedly dies near the end, I was convinced it was because someone couldn't stand any more of her terrible acting! Even worthies such as Newman and Richardson seem to struggle with the lines they've been given. Newman's speech at Karen's burial is cringe-worthy, and he looks embarrassed to be making it. Even the magnificent theme music is largely wasted, played at apparently arbitrary points during the film including, for example, Newman catching a bus. This film is not the epic it could have been, it's not even average.
gring0
A boatload of illegal immigrants are granted entry into a 3rd World country after threatening to blow up their own women and children whilst on hunger-strike. Showing their gratitude, they then embark on horrific terrorist attacks against the beleaguered British (fresh from liberating Belsen and helping free Europe from Nazism) and the indigenous population. Eventually being successful through bombing and killing, they then graciously offer the indigenous population the right to remain in their homes and shops to be treated as "equals" under an alien system. The final speech, ostensibly spoken in front of the two dead (an Arab appeaser and blond 15 year old Jew fortunate enough not to have had her hands and legs cut out and eyes gouged out) describes the speaker as angry enough to bark like a dog before saying, God help him, that he will one day see all living in peace and harmony. Just before going off to kill more Arabs.Only one Arab is presented in a positive light- a fresh-faced American-accented chief who is clearly a good guy as he has no problem with giving his people's land away to those wanting all the land eventually for themselves. Morality is never treated when it comes to the Irgun's terrorism, but rather political expediency. Jews are portrayed as blond and blue-eyed in a way to make Americans at the time, a mere four years after Suez, identify with them (in the book all are portrayed as dark in hair and complexion). Scenes are shot at an excruciatingly-slow pace or just thrown in to reinforce the justification of the terrorists (as in one scene where the Irgun leader asks Mineo to relate his experience in Auschwitz, seemingly for the hell of it). The acting is atrocious, Mineo's in particular. I have no idea why he is held up for praise given the unforgivable emoting he is required to do. But then, with such two-dimensional acting (when showing this in class, my students had no idea what Saint was talking about when she complained about her "accident" whilst driving), that is to be expected. Given that this film was made as propaganda to justify continued abuses of the Israeli state, it is deplorable that it enjoys such a high rating on IMDb.http://tracesofevil.com
tieman64
"Flatten all of Gaza! The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki too. There should be no electricity in Gaza, no neighbourhoods, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing!" - Gilad Sharon "The essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest." - EinsteinThe early 1960s saw the release of a number of Zionist flicks. These films typically portrayed brave Jews working in tandem with world leaders to set up the modern State of Israel. Standing in the way of our heroes are always various "evil Arabs", all hell-bent on killing Jews and destroying Israel (Israel "officially gained independence" in 1948). Two of the more famous films in this wave were Otto Preminger's "Exodus" and Melville Shavelson's "Cast a Giant Shadow", the latter co-funded by John Wayne, everybody's favourite psycho patriot.Most of these films are racist, propagandistic, demonize "Arabs" or selectively ignore the various atrocities and/or massacres committed by Britain and Zionists during the early 20th century. Unsurprisingly, they also adhere to Stuart Kaufman's famous 7 rules of nationalism. One: if an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50 years, it should belong to us - you are merely occupiers. Two: if an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50 years, it should belong to us - borders must not be changed. Three: if an area belonged to us 500 years ago, but never since then, it should belong to us - it is the Cradle of our Nation. Four: if a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us - they must enjoy the right of self-determination. Five: if a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us - they must be protected against your oppression. Six: our dream of greatness is Historical Necessity, yours is Fascism. Seven: our cultural continuity and purpose matters, yours does not.Regardless, Israel was illegally formed in the late 1940s, the result of the by-passing of the UN Security Council, and the violent ejecting of some 750,000 Palestinians from their land before any lawful international consensus was reached. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of "Israel", the sheer speed and tactlessness at which she was created would lead to decades of conflict. Lessing Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, would prophetically say in 1944: "The concept of a racial state – the Hitlerian concept - is repugnant to the civilised world. I urge that we do nothing to set us back on the road to the past. To project at this time the creation of a Jewish state or commonwealth is to launch a singular innovation in world affairs which might well have incalculable consequences." But nobody listened. In an instant, 55 percent of Palestine (85 percent of Palestine was controlled by "Arabic" Palestinians) was taken by a Jewish minority who had previously controlled 7 percent. The Palestinian majority, and their right to self determination, was ignored. Over the years Israel would acquire more land, which it would dub "disputed territory", though international consensus and international law deems these territories illegally occupied and in breech of the Geneva convention and numerous UN resolutions. Zionist mythology likewise portrays itself as the victim of several key wars (the Six Day War, the 1973 war, the Suez conflict, the 1947 war), when historical fact tends to state precisely the opposite.Bizarrely, most of these films use the Holocaust as the sole justification for the creation of the State of Israel. But Zionism predates the Holocaust, and really gained steam in the mid 1800s. Indeed, even the six million number – the official number of Jews who died in WW2 – has been around before WW2, the figure used in the 1800s and early 1900s to sanction various Zionist movements.The irony is, Palestinians and Jews are genetically virtually identical, they have the same paternal ancestors, and the whole concept of "Palestinians" was cooked up and propagated by the Roman and British Empires to scatter and rename Jews for the purpose of strengthening their own rule and destroying cohesiveness in the region ("Philistines", from whom the term "Palestinian" is derived, were originally the enemies of ancient Israelites). A further irony is that many ancient Jews simply converted (most were forced) to Islam and thus eventually became "Palestinians". Many Jewish customs themselves stem from an effort to assimilate to prevailing Muslim customs. And of course Palestine, under the Ottoman empire, was packed with Jews, Christians, Druze, Gypsies and Muslims, all living together.Some view Zionism as a religious movement (Israel is becoming increasingly atheist), others insist that "tribes" should be allowed to return to where they came, though it is unlikely that persons living in the year 1948 have any kind of memory of, or connection with, life in 1200 BC Jerusalem. Today, Israel is virtually an offshoot of the US military, no longer a state with an army but an army with a state. A common view is that she is a "tiny nation" in the middle of "aggressive Arab nations", but the northern and north eastern rims of Africa are virtually controlled by the Western Empires, along with Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan further south and east. It is Syria and Iran who are surrounded by Western Power."Exodus" eventually degenerates into preachy speechifying. It is reductive, does no justice to any position and, as is typical of such films, casts Gentiles for most of its Jewish roles. Unsurprisingly, the films pander to American and Christian egos, the "Jew" rehabilitated for Western audiences after decades of Western persecution. Hollywood did a similar thing with the Japanese following WW2.2/10 - See "Paradise Now", "Lemon Tree", the masterful "The Time That Remains", Justine Shapiro's "Promises" and Yoav Shamir's "Checkpoint". Worth no viewings.
Grumpy
Most of the movies that I review on IMDb are either great or horrible. I tend to review films that I either love or hate, since big emotions motivate me to write something. But "Exodus" is just a good example of a missed opportunity. It could have been a better film, if only they had stopped trying to do two things which are, really, incompatible--tell the story of the founding of Israel and portray the lives of the founders. I know, I know--this is just how a lot of people think it should be done, because they don't like watching historical documentaries and so they can enjoy a nice romance while munching popcorn and then pat themselves on the back for learning something about history. In my opinion, that kind of thinking, like the behavior of some people who relieve themselves in alleys, is not something that should be encouraged. A good, solid docu-drama about the founding of Israel would have been good. A good, solid romance, with no explanation of the political events going on in the background, would have been good. But what we have here ends up being a colossal failure to communicate.The only thing that saves this movie from actually descending into awful, campy stupidity is the (usual) first-rate performance by Paul Newman. This guy didn't get nearly the credit for his acting ability that he deserved when he was a big "star" and he still tends to be slighted by those who can't see past his mega-star image, good looks and salad dressings. The guy takes even the most awful scene--like the dreadful mess where John Derek (yes, he's in this--and just as bad as you remember) tries to explain his life and that of his father while looking really, really good--and just keeps the energy flowing even as his fellow actors are failing in epic fashion and blaming it on him. Paul Newman was one of the greatest American actors of all time, and he very nearly saves this abomination.But not quite.One actor can only do so much, particularly when he's condemned to play "strong and good looking man" so that the range of emotion he's allowed to display runs the gamut from A to B (apologies to Dorothy Parker). No actor could rescue "Exodus" from a lack of something very important in films--the climax. "Exodus" never reaches a climax, and the end of the movie is so abrupt that we end up feeling cheated.But only a little cheated, because, in general, this movie is not a total waste of time. It's not a crime against nature or humanity. It's really not that bad. It's five out of ten.
