Moses (1995)

Overrated

Excellent but underrated film

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

What a superb and deeply sensitive tribute to the Exodus story! Ben Kingsley is majestic and convincing as Moses without the grandeur of Charlton Heston's lines. He is a far more human protagonist than earlier versions of this story, complete with stutters, fears and mis-steps. As a non-religious person myself, the Biblical nature of this story did nothing to deter me from re-watching (after first loving the movie nine years ago). I felt goosebumps with the triumphs of the Israelite people and the deep devotion shown to their God. I felt for their plight as slaves. I felt emotional at the end where Moses only gets a glimpse of the Promised Land. This rendition, more than anything, resembles more of the typical story arc: the unwilling hero, his faults, his journey to greatness, his tragic failing and his end. Kingsley encapsulated this brilliantly with the help of a stellar cast. David Suchet definitely deserves his dues as a worthy companion, as does Geraldine McEwan. Some people quibble about whether it followed every aspect of the Bible, but I think this is pedantic. I've read the Exodus (I was raised in a Christian household) many times, and this rendition is marvellously faithful to the text, and, unlike "The Ten Commandments", provide a true chronicle of Moses' life. I think "The Ten Commandments" is a truly memorable and brilliant film, but that isn't because it stays faithful to the text, with more time being spent on the romance and the Golden Calf than the titular laws. Other people are unhappy with the special effects or filming, but these didn't bother me so much. So we didn't see the Red Sea actually parting- does this take away from the overall story itself? I didn't think so. The ONE criticism I did have is that no one has ever topped Yul Brynner's Pharaoh. Langella does not match Brynner's effortless, arrogant poise and clarity of delivery. Maybe he shouldn't. And the music deserves a paragraph of its own. Absolutely beautiful. It doesn't have the old Hollywood pomposity of "The Ten Commandments", but it has a deep poignancy. The violin melodies in particular last with you long after the film has finished. A film well worth re-watching.

Moses is a dick. Many plot holes. Why can he speak at the end? Why are the Egyptians white? Why does Moses stand in front of the water for so long? The water scene reminded me of the Great Wolf Lodge. Was that supposed to happen? Speaking of the Great Wolf Lodge, why are the wands $40?? Who spends that much on a wand? Besides Harry Potter. Speaking of Harry Potter, the snake from the staff reminds me of the snake in Harry Potter. Is it the same snake? He must be really rich. It is too bad that this terrible movie is now on his resume. What would Jesus think of this terrible addition to film history? I think he would be appalled.

The 1995 TV movie, "Moses," is mostly faithful to the Bible accounts that it covers in the exodus. It has six of the 10 plagues, and it has several of the events during the desert sojourn, including most of the major signs of God's power. It has good scenes of the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle and the meeting tent, although there is no discussion of these. It includes the important scouting of the Promised Land. God was ready to lead them into the land just a few months into the exodus, but the people balked. Ten of the 12 scouts said they would not be able to overcome the inhabitants who were there. The people didn't trust God to lead them in conquest of the land, so he condemned them to roam the desert for 40 years, until all those over age 20 had died. I give this film six stars for its story accuracy during the exodus. It could have been a couple notches higher but for its shortcomings. The special effects are only fair. We see a short scene of the Red Sea after it has parted. When the Nile turns into blood, it looks as though a red filter is sliding over the camera lens. The earthquake seems more like the camera moving around while the people fall and slip. One of the phenomenal things about the exodus was its sheer size. It involved two to three million people (based on Ex. 12:37). They set out with herds, flocks and belongings from Rameses, the great delta city that the Israelites had been building. This film fails to capture any of that. We see only a small area of adobe homes where the slaves live, and no sign of a great city. There are no scenes of masses of people. Most group scenes had no more than 100 people in them. Another weak aspect is the story of the early years of Moses, and his adult character. The Bible is silent on most of the first 30 years of his life. It says only that he became the son of Pharaoh's daughter. As such, he would have been taught physical skills and the "art" of combat in the royal household. We see just a glimpse of that in a stick- fighting scene with his cousin. Otherwise, Moses is a clumsy child, withdrawn, and insecure. It's not likely that Moses would have known or visited his real family in his early years. Would Pharaoh have tolerated someone from the despised Israelite slaves as a member of the royal household? There is more in scripture and tradition that attest to the very unlikelihood of this. Ben Kingsley's grown Moses is very good in his frequent internal conversations with God. But he is not the image of one who could rouse the people to follow him out of Egypt. In the Bible, Moses admits to not being an eloquent speaker, but that hardly equates to his being a lesser man physically. The scene of Moses at the well in Midian is quite novel. It seemed like another way to avoid his being portrayed as a strong man, physically or otherwise. But would Midian shepherds a few hundred miles away from the capitol of Egypt believe that this rag-tag character was from the royal Egyptian household? Or that an army of chariots had just crossed the desert and was about to put upon them? More likely, they would have thought he was an escaped thief. And, when Moses stays with Jethro's family for decades, he surely would encounter those same Midian shepherds in the days, weeks and years ahead. But where would Pharaoh's army be to back him up? No, I don't think much careful thought went into this character for Moses. The film also is weak in the names of characters, including some who aren't named directly in the Book of Exodus. The first pharaoh in the film, when Moses is growing up, is Rameses I. But his tenure was less than three years. Most scholars think that Seti I was the pharaoh at that time. His reign was about 12 years. His son, Rameses II, was about 30 years old when he became pharaoh and was the chief builder of the glorious city, Rameses. And, he reigned for 67 years which would encompass the time that Moses was in Midian and then leading the exodus. The name of the pharaoh's daughter in this film is Ptiri, but I could find no reference to that name anywhere. In the film, the Pharaoh tells Moses that she died while he was gone. But a later Bible entry (1 Chronicles 4:17) lists Bithiah as "the daughter of Pharaoh." According to tradition, she was banished by Pharaoh for having brought Moses, an Israelite, into the house of the Pharaoh and pretending him to be her own. And, she left with Moses on the exodus – part of the "mixed multitude."Some other Bible names are omitted, and fictitious names added. Zerack is a frequent complainer and critic of Moses in this movie. I can't find a reference to him anywhere. Dathan isn't mentioned at all, but in the Bible he, Korah and other leaders of the rebellion are swallowed up in the earthquake. Many movies have been made about the exodus. This one is good for its account of the exodus itself, but not very good otherwise. I would like to see an exodus movie someday that has the account of the seraph snakes that bite and kill many of the Israelites for their constant grumbling against Moses and God. And then Moses making the bronze snake and putting it on a high pole for the people to gaze on and recover from their snake bites.

This outing of the Moses and the Ten Commandments mythology tale offers us a more human Moses than some of the others. He exhibits self-doubt on a number of occasions and wavers a bit here and there, which I suppose will offend the true believers of all faiths that take the Bible and the Quran as the inspired word of "God". For myself, a life-long free thinker and skeptic, the Moses story is an exciting one, but is after all mythology. Most of the old Greek mythology tales are equally exciting, but I don't regard them as fact either.Ben Kingsley (Moses), Christopher Lee (Ramses), and others of the cast give lively performances which I would describe as satisfying, if not exactly great. My most serious quibble is the uninspired direction and hectic editing, characteristic of most made for TV productions. As to the episodic editing, though, perhaps it isn't reasonable to be too critical. After all, the three hour movie covers about 80 years of "history". You surely are not going to mistake this "Moses" as a made for the theatre production. Wouldn't you really like to see a resurrected C.B.DeMille direct a modern Moses in wide-screen Panavision and full rich Technicolor. The colour process used for this one is not even barely adequate. Don't read any further if you don't want to know the outcome in advance.I promised you a "spoiler". Guess what. Moses doesn't get to enter the "promised land" after all his 40 years in the wilderness. Are any of you surprised? He attributes this to having struck the rock twice to make it spew forth water. Was that really in the Bible? I don't seem to recall it. Not the rock and the water, the striking twice.