Exodus

Paul Newman leads a terrific cast in a very moving and important movie, one which should be revisited by all who lack a feel for what that region of the world is REALLY like. It is a timeless movie that is not shown very often and should be shown regularly.

I admit that I am more interested in the documented facts rather than novels when it comes to important periods of history. "Exodus" seemed to be a potentially interesting story that came off as a propaganda flick served up as a docudrama. I would have liked to have seen a more objective story that considers the "golden rule" rather than "the ends justifies the means". The idea of justifying the attitude of pirates (religious or not), has caused problems for most countries throughout the world. The acting was all right, but the casting did not really seem to be very convincing overall. The thoughts and decision making process of the people wanting to restore Israel as a Jewish state are interesting to me even though that may not be part of the book. There are always a familiar group of globalists involved in these decisions, and their viewpoint would also have been helpful in understanding a key to the inability to reach peaceful and stable relations in the Mideast. I have no doubt that peace, stability, and a virtual paradise could be created if these "kingpins" would allow it to happen. People are not that different when wanting the best future for their families. The real tragedy is when movies try to blur fiction and fact to the point resulting in some level of propaganda by creating the illusion of a documentary. The story of Israel, like most countries, is far more complicated than can be presented in this movie and cannot recommend it.

I liked this film, but didn't love it--mostly because the original novel by Leon Uris is so much better that I can't help but feel disappointed. In addition, having the film star so many "guest stars" made it seem a bit like an Irwin Allen picture instead of a serious film about the foundation of Israel in 1948. However, in its favor, the musical score is striking. And, even if the plot is diluted a bit and didn't need all the cameos, it still is immensely entertaining. What I would really love to one day see is a mini-series based on the book--as there is just too much plot to shove into one film--even a long film like EXODUS. The writing and emotion was so exceptional in the book and I'd love to see it captured more completely. But next time, stop putting very American actors in the leads--Paul Newman, Eva Marie Saint, Lee J. Cobb and Sal Mineo were all fine actors but the film needed people in the leads--not movie stars.

Otto Preminger's presentation of Leon Uris' novel "Exodus" tried to evoke comparisons, in its trailer, to "Gone with the Wind" and "The Birth of a Nation". Those films overcome ideological flaws, and remain genuine, undeniable classics. Despite the starry cast and sweeping grandeur, "Exodus" fails to achieve its epic intentions. Mr. Preminger, coming off the superb "Anatomy of a Murder", gives it a long and dull direction. Paul Newman (as Ari Ben Canaan) and Eva Marie Saint (as Kitty Fremont) are quite unconvincing, in the leading roles. Still, there are some good characterizations, and nicely staged scenes. The film offers two obvious, award-garnering career moves: Sal Mineo's masterful supporting performance, and Ernest Gold's beautiful musical score. Mr. Mineo (as Dov Landau) won a "Golden Globe" as "Best Supporting Actor"; and, arguably, he also deserved the year's "Academy Award". His subplot, played with pretty blonde newcomer Jill Haworth (as Karen Johansson), is far and away the most interesting story, thanks to Mineo's acting work. Mr. Gold's "Exodus" theme is also outstanding, selling well over a million copies of the Ferrante and Teicher version alone; it won not only an Oscar, but also a Grammy as 1960's "Song of the Year". ****** Exodus (12/15/60) Otto Preminger ~ Paul Newman, Eva Marie Saint, Sal Mineo

When I read in a review here that this was an "exciting historical drama; a fictional story told around actual events.", I was flabbergasted! I was 19 when I saw the film in 1960 in Paris. At that time I liked more or less the film, criticizing its length; a good script does not need to take 200 minutes to expose a subject. But this is not the most important thing here. When you tackle a subject related to a major historical event, you have no right whatsoever to distort facts. When you tackle a subject so sensitive as the consequences of the holocaust and the situation of Jews in search of a country to live at the end of WWII, you have no right to distort facts. Preminger being of Jewish origins himself had no right to use this historical event et to distort history. This appeared clearly to me after visioning the bluray and its bonuses. Nowhere is mentioned that the refugees boarded the ship in South of France. The ship was acquired in the USA and not Cyprus. The refugees never left the ship until the scandalous attack by the British forces who jumped from one destroyer onto the ship as shown on newsreels presented in the bonus of the DVD. And worst of all nowhere it is mentioned that Great Britain boarded the refugees on 3 prison ships and send them back to Hamburg in Germany. It is because of those actions that at last the United Nations reached a semi consensus to order Britain to leave Palestine and decided the creation the State of Israel. Such a treatment of history, of events which were so terrible after the horrors of WWII cant deserve any prize. This film is a tissue of lies from beginning to the end. It is too serious a subject to excuse oneself saying that it is a fiction story. As far as I'm concerned the bluray will directly go into the garbage can. It does not deserve better treatment.

I guess when EXODUS was adapted from the Uris novel ( I've not read the book so any criticisms are to do with the book being translated to screen ) the creation of the Jewish State Of Israel and events surrounding would have been fresh in everyone's mind . This leads to a fairly serious problem watching the movie in 2005 and that's factual events are skimmed over with little explanation . Or maybe the facts presented are done so in such a simplistic manner they are totally confusing to a present day audience with no knowledge of the present Israeli Arab conflicts For example the Haganah and Irgun are important to the plot . Do we have any satisfactory explanation to what they are ? There is a brief throwaway line about the differences between the two but it's hardly factual unless you believe the Haganah were a sort of Jewish Greenpeace .Likewise we're shown the bombing of The St David Hotel but it's skated over so slightly as to be deemed offensive . Did you know that many Jews died in the atrocity ? Did you know that after the bombing David Ben Guerion ( Look him up in a search engine - He was far more important than this movie makes out ) described the Irgun as " The enemy of the Jewish people " ? And the prison breakout at Acre seems to be totally Hollywoodized Okay it's not a documentary , but this simplicity seems to interfere with character motivation where Ari Ben Canaan decides to switch from the Haganah to the Irgun because " We'll need all the men we can get to fight the Arabs " . This unconvincing on screen character motivation combined with the length of the movie gives the whole scenario a feel of pot boiler mini series rather than a historical document , so by the time we're introduced to Ari's best friend from childhood - An Arab of course - and an escaped Nazi war criminal I was expecting Elizabeth Taylor and Jane Seymour to put in an appearance somewhere I hope I'm not contradicting myself here but I found the tone of the movie very grim and much of this is down to bad things happening to good people and vice versa . Innocent people die while terrorists on both sides survive beyond the final reel , but I know that in real life karma ( The mystical concept that people get what they truly deserve in life ) doesn't exist so maybe I shouldn't criticise too hard . What I do know is that you won't be doing too much laughing watching this movie EXODUS isn't a total waste of time and has some positives . Even reviewers who have expressed a dislike for the movie have credited the good cast and of course the score . It's also interesting to note that while movies featuring the Irish troubles are nearly always totally Anglophobic ( THE DEVIL'S OWN being a good example ) the Brits here while not exactly being shown as heroes aren't exactly shown as being villains either and a character does praise the conduct of the British Army during the mandate period along with General Sutherland being shown in a very sympathetic light - You don't have to be Jewish to sympathise with the Jews As for my own opinions of modern day Israelis I would say I respect and admire them more than I actually like them while EXODUS is a film that is very difficult to admire and respect though is not entirely unlikable

1. This is a movie, folks. Yes, based on a novel, but it was just that - a novel. Uris didn't claim to be writing a history textbook. As with all memorable literature, he tweaked some facts and embroidered his landscape with memorable fictional characters (although yes, many were based on real-life people.) So it's not appropriate to criticize either the novel or the book for not getting every historical fact absolutely right. 2. This is a MOVIE, folks. Based on a novel, but it's still a movie. Which meant that the actors were cast for a variety of reasons, one of which was solid bank-ability at the box office. To those who complained that Eva Marie Saint is too old in this film, I'd like to remind them that she was only a few months older (in real life) than Paul Newman was. And having her a bit older than the character in the novel is fine, since she brings a different life perspective than someone in her 20s would have. Especially since she was playing a widow. just mho. 3. What has depressed me is that this IMDb discussion of a movie has brought out the Haters. I don't mean people who hated the movie; I mean people who hate Jews and the State of Israel. Apparently, no amount of art, or even actual history, will ever be enough for some people to stop hating, to get them to stop looking for every possible opportunity to malign any group of people they get something -- however perverse or destructive -- out of hating. 4. My personal opinion of this movie is that it's an excellent MOVIE. It entertains. It teaches us a few basic facts about the creation of Israel that most of us never learned in school. It is well-cast, well-acted, well-directed, and well-photographed. In addition, it has a great score throughout the film (not just the very memorable main theme.) I saw it at a movie theater when I was fairly young, and I've probably seen it on TV over a dozen times since then. I also read the novel (a long time ago), but if I've learned anything over the years, it's that movies and novels are different animals that can't fairly be compared page-for-page, so to speak. Heck - ever read "Gone With The Wind?" In the novel, Scarlett has one child with each of her husbands, but in the movie, she only has the one child, with Rhett. But no one complains about it because it's a damn good movie. And so is "Exodus." It's damn good movie.

I can't see how this movie was not even NOMINATED for best picture. It is on par with all the other big epic pictures that have won it, like Ben Hur. This movie deserved it more than the typical mushy love story Apartment - what is it with the Academy Awards and mushy love stories? Why can't they understand that this movie was not just a diversion, but a historical non-biased account on the foundation of one of the most critical countries of the world?

"Exodus" centers on the successful escape, masterminded by the Palestinian underground leader, Ari Ben Canaan, of over 600 Jewish refugees from Cyprus to Palestine; the underground activities in Palestine; and the first Israeli-Arab conflicts following partition Surrounding these and other events are many personal dramas, including Ari's romance with American nurse Kitty Fremont (Eva Marie Saint) and his friendship with a sympathetic Arab chieftain Taha (John Derek). It's a stirring and visually beautiful film, but it contains one of Newman's least exciting performances Some contend that Newman's motivational Method conflicted with Preminger's authoritarian approach; others that he was miscast… But Ari is the kind of dedicated, single-minded loner Newman is expert at—except, of course, that the dedication is to a cause, not to himself When Newman insults the well-meaning Cypriot, Mandria (Hugh Griffith), his friends tell severely that his action is wrong, affirming that Mandria is a real friend… He replies: "When the showdown comes, we will always stand alone. Mandria will sell us out like all the others. We have no friends, except ourselves." Those lines are also in the novel, but they could almost have been written expressly for Newman, whose self-sufficient characters often speak in this manner The real problem is that Newman never gives Ari warmth or humanity… His initial impatience, hostility, arrogance and indifference to individual problems are understandable, since he is planning crucial events… But even when he is supposed to be getting warmer, more understanding, aware that outsiders can be trusted (Kitty, a Christian, becomes deeply committed to the cause), his behavior remains almost exactly the same He never comes to life until the last scene, a passionate funeral oration, and by then it's too late… There's none of the charm or vitality that makes us interested in even the most vicious of Newman's antiheroes… In the one instance where Newman is supposed to be funny—his impersonation of a British officer—he is forced and uneasy

Seeing "Exodus" early in the 21st century, one is robbed of the experience that moviegoers of the early 1960s would have had; it's impossible to see a movie about the birth of Israel now without the perspective of the Six-Day War of 1967, which changed the perception many non-Jews had of Israel. That, and the events that the Six-Day War led to, have eroded the moral assurance that many of the main characters of "Exodus" espouse about Israel and its founding, and would eventually lead to the moral quagmire found 45 years later in Steven Spielberg's "Munich." Today, "Munich" is much closer to the grayness of who is right or wrong in the modern-day Middle East than the black-and-white assumptions that drive the characters of "Exodus" in 1947 -- or its creators in 1960. And it's likewise much harder to accept Paul Newman in the role of a Jewish freedom fighter; though he was already a big star in 1960 (which was no doubt the reason that he was chosen for the part), one cannot evaluate his performance here without recalling all the other high points of his career that were still ahead of him -- "The Hustler," "Cool Hand Luke," "Hombre," and of course his two big triumphs with Robert Redford, as Butch and Sundance and in "The Sting" -- not to mention a career that kept humming even into the 1990s. He's hardly remembered for this role at all today, and though even he isn't in every scene in a sweeping epic like this, it's hard to look at the movie without remembering all that would come later. What stands out today more than Newman's performance, therefore, are the many secondary characters -- Sal Mineo as the tortured survivor of Auschwitz with secrets that lead him to the Irgun (and a performance that would earn him his second and last Oscar nomination); David Opatoshu as a Menachem Begin-like figure who believes violence is better than negotiation; and Jill Haworth, all of 15 at the time, and who would have a bevy of ingénue roles into the 1960s, but whose career would dribble out by the end of the next decade. In particular, this was a great role for Opatoshu, who is probably best remembered today for his many guest shots on television (like Newman, most that came after this, in everything from "Twilight Zone" and "Mission:Impossible" to "Star Trek" and "Hawaii Five-O"). Though he is recognizable for those roles, it's worth remembering that he came out of Yiddish Theater and was a controlled, subtle performer who rarely got the kind of meaty role that he had here -- and one that no doubt was important to him. So, while it's mainly remembered today for Ernest Gold's stirring theme music, "Exodus" is interesting as a window into a different time and a different way of thinking -- both about its subject matter and its main character . . . and the once and future star who played him.