frankwiener 1. In spite of its obvious flaws, this movie has been grossly underrated and unfairly criticized by many reviewers, probably due to their purely political views or even more sinister motivations that transcend politics alone. It is especially reprehensible that IMDb continues to publish reviews that are blatantly and factually incorrect and even scandalous such as that of alleged Cypriot, "Mr. Charalampous", below, and this is only one of many examples. When I observe a film that has received an unjustifiable rating, I feel compelled to distort my own rating, as in this case. At the opposite extreme is the hijacking of the IMDb website by the Marion Davies cult, among others, which results in laughably high numerical values of Ms. Davies' mostly mediocre films. That is only one glaring example of many abuses here.2. Unlike many other reviewers, I read "Exodus" by Leon Uris many years ago immediately after his notable masterpiece "Mila 18" and was extremely disappointed by the inane dialogue and artificially stereotyped characters of Kitty Fremont and Ari Ben Canaan, which destroyed the book for me in spite of its very important subject matter. I don't fault Dalton Trumbo for a script which is far inferior to his other works as he was in no position to re-invent the characters from scratch, as they needed to be.3. While many reviewers of varying political persuasions had issues with the historical accuracy of the film, this again reverts back to problems with the original book by Uris and, as is the case with all works of fiction based on historical events, the disclaimer at the very beginning is as clear as day. Don't blame Preminger for any of that. He did the best that he could with the flawed source material.4. In spite of the startling brutality and mass murder that had so recently transpired in Europe for more than a decade, Ms. Kitty declares her highly hypocritical, liberal philosophy that "people are the same, no matter". If "people are the same, no matter", why did she clearly express to General Sutherland her discomfort when in the presence of Jews at the beginning of the film? What a phony. Then, a very short time later, we witness her with a rifle slung over her shoulder during the final scene. Is that because "people are the same, no matter"? Why the sudden change? I don't know about you, but most of the confirmed liberal women I know would have high-tailed it back to Indiana--more likely San Francisco--in a jiffy rather than don a rifle on the Israeli border even for the likes of Paul Newman. This is only one instance of non-credibility among several for me, and I blame Uris more than Preminger or Trumbo for all of the improbabilities from start to finish.5. Among the cast, the unsung heroes were those who took relatively minor roles, including Peter Lawford, a much underrated actor in spite of his high Kennedy connections, Hugh Griffith, and David Opatoshu. Having seen Eva Marie Saint in both her Oscar winning performance of "On the Waterfront" and another memorable contribution to "North By Northwest", I'm not going to blame her for the inferior material that was handed to her here and for the rather unsympathetic character that she portrays in this case. From one native Newarker to another, I'll always love ya, Eva Marie. Newman also did his very best under the circumstances, including the strange and unlikely combination funeral at the end.6. Unlike other reviewers, I appreciated the location cinematography in both Cyprus and Israel. Organizing thousands of extras could not have been an easy task.7. The theme song and the rest of the musical score by Ernest Gold significantly added to the emotional impact of the subject matter far more than the lengthy dialogue, which could have and should have been shortened substantially. In general, I am not a fan of cinematic romance unless it is exceptional, such as Wood and McQueen in "Love With the Proper Stranger" or Holden and Jones in "Many Splendored Thing" even if the latter two couldn't stand each other in real life. I felt none of that magical magnetism between Saint and Newman here, surely not enough to keep Ms. Kitty in the Upper Galilee wedged between Syria on one side and Lebanon on the other. No way, no how.

moosish-628-965954 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.

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.