Exodus (1960)

You won't be disappointed!

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

This is a dialogue laden movie that covers a lot of ground. There is enough material to cover three movies really. The escape from Cyprus to Palestine could be a single movie. Yet Exodus continues on to the point when the United Nations votes to partition Palestine. Then it briefing covers the Arab's trying to drive the Jews out after the UN vote.The movie never flags over its 3 hour plus length. It makes a very complicated event in history understandable and shows the human suffering and anguish caused by a people with no place to call home.The length of the movie may give some pause. I suggest watching it in two parts. Try pausing it once the Exodus ship reaches Palestine. Then watch the rest later on. I don't understand the knocks on this movie for not showing more of the Arab/Jewish conflicts after Israel becomes a state. That would require another 3 hours. Also, the movie was made in 1960, so it couldn't possibly show what happens in 1961 or later.I have a copy of the film that was one of a 3 film set. The other two films were 'Battle of Britain' and 'A Bridge too far'. I had no idea what 'Exodus' was about and it turned out to be perhaps the best movie of the three. Just keep in mine the heavy dialogue with only occasional action in 'Exodus'. You have to appreciate it for the type of movie it is.

This is so disappointing! I cannot even go into the many ways this film was a letdown after reading the book. It really should not have had the same title as the book, because people who saw this movie who had not read the book would think they know what is in the book, and they would be wrong.To be fair, this book is much too epic to have possibly be put into a 2-hour film. It would need something on the order of 6 or even 12 hours in a miniseries. All that said, Uris was not a true historian when it came to beefing up his book. It's a crying shame that otherwise good historical novels twist the truth just for the sake of their "product."One HUGE example is that in the book 300 children aged 7 to 13, most who had been in concentration camps all their lives, were the ONLY ones that were taken on the Olympus when the escape was made from the detainment camp to take them to Palestine. In the film it started out all ages -- and then the Jew in charge of the escape sending ALL children BACK to the detainment camp when the going got tough. And all I can say for certain is that in real life, the Brits sent the Jews who were on that ship back to Germany. The whole point (in the book and in real life) was that it was very well publicized worldwide, so that the international community cared -- for a short time, at least -- for the Jews, and this is significant and a factor in what happened on the world stage in relation to Israel.There is SO MUCH depth and flavor in the book that is NOT in this film. In addition, I don't have anything against Paul Newman, but he was not right for the part of Ari Ben Canaan. Oh sure, in this film (which is NOT like the book), he works as the romantic lead in the usual Hollywood style. For the purposes of Hollywood and the powers that were involved they even had him telling the Jews at a kibbutz to "always respect Allah" at the funeral of his old friend-turned-enemy, Taha. That is absurd. Sure, respect PERSONS (who may believe in Allah), but no self-respecting Jew would tell other Jews at a kibbutz in Israel to always respect Allah. One wonders whether this line was written out of ignorance or under political pressure. Even with the diversions from actual history in the book, it is very well worth reading. Uris put more in correctly than wrongly from what I can tell, and the flavor of the situation I believe was well written. The movie? Eh. I could have never seen it and I would really not have missed anything.

I had just read the book and did not remember the movie, so I watched it. Paul Newman was not very believable until very near the end. His portrayal of Ari Ben Canaan was not convincing. One of the characters who is important to the plot to embarrass the English into releasing the Exodus in the book, does not appear in the movie. Ari's sister, Jordana, has a adversarial relationship with Kitty that only comes out in an off-hand statement from Kitty about how Ari's sister talks to her. In addition to missing relationships and characters, the character development did not match the book and it seemed that movement from scene to scene was not smooth. A rating of 3 might be generous.

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.