SYNOPSICS
Exodus (1960) is a English movie. Otto Preminger has directed this movie. Paul Newman,Eva Marie Saint,Ralph Richardson,Peter Lawford are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1960. Exodus (1960) is considered one of the best Action,Drama,History,War movie in India and around the world.
The theme is the founding of the state of Israel. The action begins on a ship filled with Jewish immigrants bound for Israel who are being off loaded on Cyprus. An Intelligence officer succeeds in getting them back on board their ship only to have the harbor blocked by the British with whom they must negotiate. The second part of the film is about the situation in Israel as independence is declared and most of their neighbors attack them.
Exodus (1960) Trailers
Fans of Exodus (1960) also like
Same Actors
Exodus (1960) Reviews
A very depressing discussion here
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.
"Exodus", the book and the movie
Adapted from one of the best books of the last century, Otto Premenger's "Exodus" (1960) had all the components of an exiting, deeply moving masterpiece. It was made by a very talented and celebrated director ("Laura" , "Anatomy of a Murder"); most scenes of the film were made in locations where the original events had occurred; one of the best ever American actors(Paul Newman) played the main character, Jewish hero, a fearless Freedom fighter, Ari Ben Canaan; Sal Meneo gave an absolutely compelling performance as Dov Landau, a young man, a boy really who had survived the horrors of Auschwitz, the only survivor of a big family from Warsaw. Ernst Gold won an Academy award for his truly magnificent musical score. Sadly, "Exodus" is not a masterpiece it is an overlong, heavy handed, and rather unimpressive movie that caused satirist Mort Sahl to say, "Otto, let my people go" as he watched the film's 220-minute preview. Ironically, with all this running time, the best, the most inspirational parts of the book did not make it to the film. Among them are historical events dealing with the origins of ghetto system, pogroms in Russia, the long and fascinating journey of two brothers from a small Russian town to Palestine by foot, the ideas of Theodor Herzl, the birth of kibbutzes in Palestine, and enormous labor of kibbutznicks to make the land fertile, to grow plants and trees where the desert, rocks, and swamps had been, as well as the tragedy of European Holocaust and dramatic story of United Nations voting for partition of Palestine in 1947 and the war of the infant state against its multiple and hostile neighbors for the right to exist and be an independent country. I watched the movie just before I left for my trip to Israel a few weeks ago and I took the book with me there. Reading the book while be able to see the places it describes with such passion and love, to see the land that is called "promised land" or "Holy land" WAS one of the most emotional and unforgettable experiences in my life, watching the movie was not. It is just an illustration to the fantastic book no more, no less. IMO, the book deserves the same treatment that Puso's "Godfather" had received it should've been adapted into several movies, not just one. Like in Godfather, Part II, the scenes of the past and present should've alternated, given the viewers deeper insight in the events and the passions and politics behind them. Or even better, perhaps "Exodus" should've been adapted into TV mini-series format where every important character would've had enough time for his/her story.
A movie that excels all expectations- and offers a rare glimpse of history
I know it's not the most talked about movie, but put it on your list- it should be in the top. This is a film that will certainly bring some sort of emotion to you- passion, hate, love, anger... While following the lives of a couple of post-Holocaust Jews, it manages to show every step of the way to the creation of the State of Israel. The film goes from Cyprus to a boat to Israel, all while remembering historical events during the Holocaust, Israel, and much more. Unlike many modern films that are decisively pro or anti-Israel (sometimes to the extreme), this one displays its message eloquently but clearly, although it leaves some room for you to decide how to perceive it. Yet it can also be watched as a love story or a survival epic. It shows reason for the wrong and the right and has the ability to change your opinion. Ultimately, the movie leaves you thinking about all it has to say and what its characters had to say. It has great cinematic quality too. Paul Newman and Lee J. Cobb are great as their parts, portraying real people in real situations. The cinematography is excellent, too, with shots that bring the emotion to you and put you in the mindset of each character. The epic score tops it all off- it is the key to this movie's wonder. It keeps everything flowing and depending on its variation can match the emotion of any scene. Finally, Otto Preminger's direction tops it off. The drama is raw and truthful, while on a grand scale that few other movies have been able to capture.
Hard to View Today as it Was in 1960; Best Remembered Now for its Score
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.
Heavy-going modern epic, toned down from a passionate novel
"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 atexcept, 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 funnyhis impersonation of a British officerhe is forced and uneasy