The Ten Commandments (2005–2006) User Reviews

You Will Start to Appreciate '56 Version- 2006 10 Commandments **1/2

[edwagreen · 4/10 · 27 May 2010]

In the event you have forgotten the 1956 masterpiece, your memory will be restored when you see this very weak version of the old testament tale.

This version has many different interpretations. Moses, as a young children knew of Amron and Yochobel, his true parents. In fact, Amron was alive when Moses was a child. We see a hesitating Aaron and that Moses had another brother other than the eventual King Ramses.

The dialogue here is not good. When the Lord reveals himself to Moses at the burning bush, Moses just about says-"I shall not go," 3 times as if he is a stubborn child.

Notice that Moses' mom never ages in this production. I thought that Zipporah would actually be jealous of her mother-in-law's beauty.

The plagues come in rapid succession movie wise and Ramses looks more like a mummy. The thespians merely state their lines. There is little to no emotion depicted here.

Spectacular adaptation about the known story with Dougray Scott leading Jews out of Egypt

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 2 April 2007]

Biblical story developed in a great scale for TV , though no such as the classic Cecil B. De Mille's version. This vivid storytelling although fairly standard , follows appropriately the Moses' life , the son of a Jew slave, from birth and abandonment on a basket over river Nile, as when Pharaoh Seti ordered the killing of all newborn babies, being pick up by Egyptian princesses (Padme Lasksmi , Claire Bloom) and he's raised in the royal court, becoming a Prince of Egypt. Once grown-up Moses (Dougray Scott) embarks a supernatural mission, getting the freedom for Hebrews. Then , Moses retires to desert where meets Jethro (Omar Sharif), and marring his daughter Sefora. The stoic Moses along with his brothers Aaron (Linus Roache) and Miriam (Susan Lynch) confront Pharaoh Ramses (Paul Rhys) and his fostered brother (Naveen Andrews). Moses asks Pharaoh for liberate them but he refuses, causing the Egyptian plagues : invasion of locusts, fogs ,epidemic , water turns into blood and death of the first-born. Moses takes charge of God's people and take them from Pharaoh's punishing grip . Moses like liberator of the Jewish leads his people throughout desert battling Malaquitas , Filisteos , and with holy intervention : emerging water hitting on a rock, and dropping divine food . Finally , Moses climbs the Mount of Sinai bringing the holy tablets, meanwhile Jewish people worshipping the golden calf.

This is a monumental version for television of the book of ¨Exodus¨with impressive special effects, including the computer generator parting of the Red Sea; in spite of making by means of usual 3D C. G. , the effects still look great. The Hebrew lawgiver is well-suited and roughly played by Dougray Scott . Remainder casting play with utter conviction and hold the lengthy movie together . However , the movie , is trimming down for TV miniseries , it makes lost the really spectacular scenes on the small screen. The picture is suitable for family viewing and religious people . Other adaptations about this story are the classic mute (1923) by Cecil B. DeMille , the second handling and the greatest with a gargantuan scale (1959) played by Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner, Anne Baxter and a TV rendition (1975) by Gianfranco De Bossio with Burt Lancaster and Anthony Quayle.

The film is produced by Robert Halmi of ¨Hallmark TV¨ which has produced several movies and series about historical events and famous characters , such as : Cleopatra, Odyssey (Ulises), Hercules , Jason and the Argonauts , Joan of Arc , Lion in winter (Henry II and Leonor of Aquitania) , Prince and pauper (Henry VIII and Edward VI)..This television movie was professionally directed by Robert Dornhelm , a mini-series expert based on historic roles : Spartacus , Archduke Rudolf and Mary Vetsera , Anne Frank, War and peace and even Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of N. Y.

Not good, but not bad either

[drama_queen_casper · 6/10 · 15 April 2006]

I am a 7th grader at a catholic school, and last year, we learned about the Old Testament. More than a half of the year was spent learning about The Ten Commandments. I saw both the 2006 version and the 1956 version. Personally, I thought that, while the 1956 version was more interesting, it was not true to the biblical story. The 2006 version was very true to what I had learned. I liked being able to talk about it and follow along with everything. I was slightly disappointed with the 1956 version, and kept on telling my dad, "But this never happened!" It bothers me when things aren't the way they're supposed to. And I know the Old Testament like the back of my hand, so when I watched this, I was very upset. I don't think that the reviews of the movie were accurate. Before watching this, I prepared myself for the lost movie of all time, but instead, I rather enjoyed it.

Check out the 1956 version....this one is a real let down

[huggie-1 · 2/10 · 11 April 2006]

I had high hopes for this movie I even gave up a night of watching Stargate for this movie. I found it had a rushed feel about it and a lot of the key biblical moments and facts were missing. I might be a bit jaded and spoiled for the 1956 version, as I have watched that one every year for the last 20 or so years. I doubt this one will make it to the realm of yearly classic, as the other one has. If you have not seen the 19546 version, you might like this one but, I seriously doubt it and urge you to skip this one and go rent or buy the classic one. This has some nifty special effects but that is not what I look for when telling a movie like the Ten Commandments. I was kind of looking to see how they told the story, and the writers did not do a good job with this one.

I enjoyed this movie..

[paristeri · 7/10 · 15 April 2006]

Watching this version of the story inspired me to reread the source material, ie the Bible..again. This movie was not about entertainment so much as conveying what I thought was a fair rendering of the original story. Dougray Scott's portrayal seemed more consistent with Moses'uncertainty faced with the task given to him. I have always enjoyed the 1956 film and indeed liked Ben Kingsley's performance in 1996, however this one seemed to convey a "reality" not seen in other versions. It's obviously difficult for modern people to ever comprehend the lives of people 3000 years ago..our roots so to speak...I'm happy I got a chance to see this film, which I would describe as an experience...

Incoming message from the big giant head!

[refuge316 · 2/10 · 12 April 2006]

The only reason I am giving a second star is for the first half of the movie. This was a good rendition of the story. I enjoy seeing a few fictional characters added to add some color to a well known story. But the second half was horrible!!! Yes there were violent aspects of this story. But the writers of this movie chose to only include the violence and forget about the good things God did for the Israelites. Towards the end of the movie Scott looked as though he were getting messages from the big giant head instead of talking and hearing from God. This rendition had some HUGE problems with deviation from scripture. And big surprise, there are no favorable deviations! Their portrayal of Moses as this screaming naked lunatic who did all of this against his will is totally false. It showed a Moses who had to scream in order to get God to talk to him. WRONG The scripture says God spoke to Moses all the time and not just after a temper tantrum. They got the people's complaining right, but failed to show that God spoke to Moses at Sinai in an audible voice that the followers could hear and believe.(Chapter 19). They also forgot the pillar of fire and cloud which guided them in the day and night.

What was the whole Joshua thing? The righteous peace loving Jew who would not fight until Moses threatens him? WRONG (He was known as a great warrior) What about the great speech that Moses gave the army telling them God had helped them enough and now they were on their own?? WRONG (They only won through God's help as shown in their own scenes with Moses lifting his staff)And what was that sorry looking Ark of the Covenant? Instead of overlaying it with gold this movie was on a tight budget and attached little gold chips to it! Oh yeah, it was a "molten calf" not a straw one with little chips tacked on. Someone forgot that they came out of Egypt with a huge amount of gold tribute from the Egyptians. You wouldn't know it from this sorry looking bunch.

By the way, the part about them slaying the Israelites after the golden calf incident says "men" and does not mention women and children which the movie delighted in showing the viewers. Oh yeah - Manna wasn't the only thing sent from heaven - don't forget the birds for meat. Also, the Bible mentions Jethro bringing Moses his wife and children and then says Jethro went back to his own land. It does not say that Moses gave up his family.

Oh well, if you know nothing about the real story, read Exodus for yourself. If you know the real story, you will hate this version.

I have never been so disgusted in all my life!!!!

[eliz7212-1 · 13 April 2006]

And that is putting it mildly. To make a miniseries is to make a profit. I know this. Advertisers pay for commercial spots and that's how the producers sell a made for TV movie. Everything is for profit. Well in this instance, if I had been any advertiser that paid to have my commercial shown in this piece of trash, I should be shot. And I am NOT over-reacting believe me. Why am I mad? I couldn't care less that this mini-series didn't live up to the Charlot Heston one. That was a motion picture, in Technicolor and will always stand the test of time. Nothing can beat it. They should have never made a mini-series if they weren't going to make it bigger, better (especially with the special effects technology we have today). That didn't really bother me, it just made the movie less colorful (believe me, it is much less colorful than the original). Why am I so mad? Because they show the slaughter of children. I have never in all my life thought I would see ....

SPOILER ALERT.....

in the second half, when Moses' people turn on the others who were worship-ping the calf, Joshua turns to Moses and says "what do we do with the prisoners". (seems they let some live). And Moses says "kill them all", it's God's will". And there they went too far. With spears, with knives, they show grown men slitting kid's throats!!!!

Are the producers out of their minds. I shut off the TV immediately.

I know this is 2006 and we have to do more graphics because the audience gets bored easily. BUT THIS WAS OVER THE LINE.

That's all I have to say.

mel

Never As Good As Charleton Heston's Moses

[FloatingOpera7 · 7/10 · 14 April 2006]

The Ten Commandments (2006) Starring Dougray Scott, Paul Rhys, Omar Shariff, Richard O'Brien, Linus Roache, Padma Lakshmi, Lisa Jacobs, Louis Hilyer, Karim Salah, Mia Maestro, Susan Lynch, Director Robert Dornhelm A remake of Cecil B. De Mille's epic 1957 film was not necessary. Channel 7 ABC is known for its blend of thriller and soap-opera-ish series like Desperate Housewives and Alias yet every year around Easter, they make TV movie about Jesus or Moses. The annual tradition of airing De Mille's Ten Commandments starring Charlteon Heston is wholly suited for Easter. This film suffers from an attempt to be as grandiose as the original but with more humanity and more realism, though it fails miserably. Dougray Scott as Moses looks more like Jim Caviezel in The Passion of the Christ, thus implying the Christian idea that Moses was a Messianic figure, a Jesus figure. This film is evidently more Christian than Jewish in theme, though that's not at all bad either. Paul Rhys, who looks Arabic, plays the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses, once a good friend and adopted brother to Moses turned enemies due to the difference in the gods they worship. Sometimes this film strays from the Biblical account, but for the sake of sensational drama, that's also OK. Mia Maestro plays Zephora, Moses'wife. She plays the role in an old-school manner, which means not very strongly. Veteran film actor Omar Shariff (Dr. Zhivago himself)plays Jethro, Zephora's father, the goat-herder/property owner in Midian. It's good to see an old face and to see such a versatile, talented actor doing all types of films. Generally, this film is fine but it lacks the magic of De Mille's timeless classic. The first part of the film which builds up to the Parting of the Red Sea, is good. The 10 Plagues, the chase between Egyptians and Hebrew slaves, etc is well-rendered. But the second part was bland, dull and talky. The Orgy scene, in which they worship the Golden Calf, and when Moses breaks the 10 original commandments, is almost a replica of the original and thus is no good. The rest of the movie dealt with the Hebrews' journey into the Promised Land, their continuous offenses against God and their war with local tribes. The music is neither dramatic or grand, even forgettable. So, you're better watching Charleton Heston become Moses as he should look like and not Dougray Scott.

Warning - loosely Bible based but not Biblical

[daniel-1219 · 3/10 · 13 October 2006]

If you are a Christian or a Jew hoping to see an accurate Biblical (or Torah) portrayal of the events in Exodus, you will be disappointed by this movie. In typical Hollywood fashion people who are not even in the Bible have been "created" for supporting characters and play a large role in the movie. Jethro's role is changed completely and he becomes nothing but an untrusting father-in-law instead of a Shepherd priest who gave Moses excellent advise. God is largely removed from the movie, and instead viewers are given the impression that Moses had to figure things out for himself. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This movie is a typical Humanistic twist on Biblical things and attempts to put most of the responsibility on Moses for trying to understand what God wants and what he should do. Those who know the book of Exodus well will see not only inconsistencies in the movie, but outright glaring changes to events. Most importantly, they will see a near total absence of God's dialog with Moses, which determines everything Moses does after the burning bush. Far from being alone as portrayed in the movie, Moses is guided by God with detailed and direct communication.

Even Hallmark apparently can't acknowledge God's direct role, and without his spoken words to Moses many events make no sense. To compensate, Hallmark has actually changed some things. For instance, after the golden calf God plagues the people and they must look upon a symbol of a serpent to live. Hallmark creates a civil war instead and the Israelites pick sides, then slaughter each other. Moses side wins of course.

There may be minimal value in this movie to unbelievers since it may cause them to seek answers, but believers should stay away. The twisted events and changes make this a danger to anyone who doesn't know their Bible. Read Exodus for yourself, there is no substitute.

A darker portrayal of The Exodus with many gory details

[DragoonKain · 7/10 · 11 April 2006]

"I think your god is cruel" says the brother of Moses after his son had been smitten along with the rest of the children of Egypt. But let's get to the point, God in the Old Testament can be very cruel, and they let that be known in this film.

One thing I liked about this mini-series is that it didn't hold back when it came to this. You will see the massacre of the Amalekites as well as the killing of all the prisoners that had surrendered after the battle with Moses's army when they chose not to stand with him. I think showing the children being killed was a bit much for network television. But it's all written in the bible, so it must be shown.

Moses is depicted as a tortured leader throughout. He seems to really not want to have this responsibility, and seems to really feel bad when kills in the name of God. But he still does it. There are times when you begin to think that he's going crazy, and leading a bunch of people to their deaths. But you quickly remember that this is The Bible, and that he is their savior.

I'm not quite sure what the director/writers were trying to accomplish with this portrayal. Whether their critiquing the Bible, God's motives, judaism, or simply the side of the bible most films seem to ignore. Or maybe they believe that this is truly the way we should live. More likely it was a way to get ratings, violence sells. Either way, it's interesting to see this side of the Bible. The darker nature of God. In the New Testament God seems so much nicer doesn't he? I guess this is reminder of how powerful and cruel he can be, so that we can be kept in line and not stray from the laws.

In the end, it doesn't matter what their motives were. The film is what it is just as the bible is what it is. It's not entirely accurate of course, a lot of artistic liberties were taken. And it's not as grand as the original film with Heston, a superior film in my opinion. But I like the alternative depiction. Most people are unaware of the many massacres committed by God's people in the Bible. Those depictions have been avoided because it makes God look like a bad guy. http://www.thebricktestament.com is one example of this "darker" side of the bible resurfacing.

I'm not a religious person. I don't subscribe to any of the major religions out there. But I do love the Bible as a literary work and I enjoy most films based on it. This one was very good. But the original is still better. Still, it's worth seeing this darker version of the story.

10 Commandments 2006 miniseries..totally let me down

[penwil09 · 3/10 · 11 April 2006]

I watched this series out of curiosity,wanting to see if they could possibly and with ALL this modern technology,out do Cecil B. DeMille's classic epic of 1956, starring Charleton Heston,Yul Brenner and Sir Cedric Hardwicke. Of course, I was let down. Yes, they had all the Biblical characters correct, but they didn't give us any of the spectacular theatrical scenes, that held your interest throughout the first movie. If you going to have a mini-series, you have to have some "rivoting" scenes, the "Burning bush", Parting the "RED Sea",drowning "Pharohs Armies", "building Sethi's Pyramids", could have been done with todays' technology on the scale of blockbuster movies such as "Lord of the Rings" or the Matrix. Obviously, they didn't want to leave a LASTING impression of "faith and sacrifice", which is much needed in these trouble times.

Very Good

[Bloodxxshot · 10/10 · 12 April 2006]

I saw this movie had a front page cover on my TV guide on Sunday and out of curiosity decided that it would be a good idea to at least take a look. I turned it on expecting a pretty bad TV movie but I got an epic. I was very loyal to the Charleton Heston version of Moses but now that I think about it and how Heston's version was so glamorous and glittery it just doesn't fit. This version showed a gritty real version of how Moses led his people. The fact is that all the glitter for 1956 just does not match up to the raw gritty nature that this mini series held. Dougray Scott convinced me that he was Moses. He showed how Moses felt about his amazing responsibility. If your going to compare it to 1956 the only thing you will find is disappointment.

Drags and is Dull Considering the Source Material

[LeonLouisRicci · 6/10 · 24 April 2014]

Surprisingly Lackluster and Dull Retelling of the Famous Story from the Old Testament. Comparisons to the C.B. Demille 1956 Movie are Expected. This One is Weak by Contrast and Nothing More than a TV Movie Modernization that is Worth a Watch but can be Boring and Talky, it is Drab and Drags much of the Time.

That is Odd Considering the Powerful Source Material and Previous Film Adaptations. The Makeup and Costumes are Bad and Uninteresting. The Egyptian Scenes Look Cheap and the Desert is, well, the Desert.

Moses' Interaction with God is Uninspiring, and His Contemplation Afterwards is Somewhat Thought Provoking but the Following Actions and the Wandering is Hit and Miss, Mostly Misses.

It is such a Good Story and its Implication to Human History and Behavior can Hardly be Measured, so in a Sense these Artistic Rendering are just that, an Attempt at Creatively Portraying Supernatural Events that Emblazoned its Mark Upon Humanity.

So Attempting such a Profound People Experience is Always going to come up a bit Short. But here is Another Try that is, in the End, going to be what the Viewer Makes of it. It is a Very Personal Experience Viewing This Type of Thing.

Not accurate

[keith-556 · 2/10 · 13 April 2006]

With a name like "10 Commandments" you would expect a film to be representative of the account in the Bible, specifically Exodus. Not so here. This is standard procedure with any Biblical Hallmark-made film. Remember "Noah"?? That was utter fiction and one of the worst films ever made. At least this film had "some" truth to the original story. However, Menerith, who was a major character in this movie - half-brother of Moses, is not in the original story. Other characters were absent, not to mention important events were completely eliminated. So what, you may ask? Because this should be representative of the actual story; otherwise, some might and do believe that is the way it actually happened. In today's age, people get their religion from movies instead of Church and reading the Bible. Also, it is a great error. See Revelation 22:18-19. The script is already written. Why change it? Other than the account in Exodus itself (which should be the main focus), you have the Cecil B. DeMille film to compare it to, which is clearly a far better presentation.

The night it first aired, my wife was anxious to see it. I told her not to get her hopes up because it was a Hallmark-film. She looked puzzled and said, "Why? Hallmark makes good movies". That might be so, but they butcher the Bible. I'm sorry to say that I was correct. Not just the story, but the acting as well. With today's technology, you should be able to make a wonderful Biblical movie. I'm still waiting...

The 1956 movie was much better

[monaissuchalady · 1/10 · 11 April 2006]

This movie deviated from the Bible and fell so below the bar of the 1956 movie. I hate that they replaced the 2006 movie over the traditionally seen 10 commandments. Moses looked like a criminal in this movie, not like the kind looking man Charelston Heston in the 1956 movie. I will not waste my time again watching this movie. They tried so hard to modernize this movie in order to keep you on the edge that it was more like a soap opera (and not a good one at that). I'm pretty sure that younger ones out there who never paid attention to the original 10 commandments may disagree with me, but to each his own. Also, it took them 10 years to make the first 10 commandments, it probably took them 2 months to make this one. The special effects were not as amazing as the first one and after all these years with so much technology, you would have thought they would have done better now.

A Worthy Version

[earlytalkie · 31 March 2013]

I read bad reviews of this one after the other before I saw this and I was prepared not to like this. My friend bought this for $5.00 about a year and a half ago and it became one of those DVDs that sits unwatched in storage. Being Easter Sunday and not being able to access either the 1956 version or Ben-Hur, we decided to give this a spin. I was surprised at how good this was. This was a somewhat grittier version of the story, but, as it is explained in a "making-of" documentary extra on the disc, this was the film maker's intent. The production values are excellent as is the music score. The 3-hour film is broken into two parts, thus allowing a natural "intermission". The acting is good, the direction is good and it really holds your attention so what's not to like?

Hope this doesn't spoil it for you but,

[lovebirds4791 · 7/10 · 11 April 2006]

This movie takes a better approach to the biblical story and brings it to life with more information than the original. It doesn't need a lot of extra effects to show the story of God using Moses leading his people to the Holy Land. Dougray Scott brings a personality to Moses that no other actor can give him. The movie adds more than the original from 1956, like the crossing of the red see and the trials and tribulations the people had to go through to get to the promised land. I hope this movie comes out on video/DVD just so I can show it to my children when they are old enough to understand it. Moses shows more compassion for his enemies and those who die. There may not be a lot of special effects added but it would not show the true bible story with to much added in as it takes place in a time when there was no technology. Congratulations to those who made this movie.

Oh Leave it to Hollywood

[Brandy-28 · 1/10 · 11 April 2006]

I really wish Hollywood would come up with some new ideas and quick. Instead they go around and recreate and mess up a perfectly good movie with a re-make. This movie is awful from the DeMille version. All the way through this movie I was saying to myself, Huh??? - What???? - I don't remember that part. The only exciting thing in this movie so far was the parting of the Red Sea. And in Heston's version - it was a heck of a lot better than this version. Did anyone else see an atomic or nuclear bomb cloud fade in and out when the Red Sea was being parted? I think I did. Anyway, I Might - Might - watch the last part tonight.

I wish Hollywood would tackle different ideas and subject matters when they are making new movies. Instead of re-hashing old films.

They should of left well enough alone.

UPDATE:

Well I watched the last part. Did Moses make up the second copy of the ten commandments with his own hand - or was I seeing things - please someone - email me and let me know. HORRIBLE

Grand

[maxkaemmerer · 6/10 · 21 October 2009]

I truly liked this movie.

When I rented it I was like "What? A remake of The Ten Commandments? Bulldeuce". Then I started the DVD and the menu looked cheesy as Sheol. It comes in two parts you have to watch separately, which is weird. The beginning of the movie was slow, too. But other than that, it's quite good. It has it's share of excellent scenes like Pharaoh carrying his dead son through his palace (which is unfortunately accompanied by Menerith doing the same with awfully goofy looking long hair) and Moses praying in the wilderness. The movie doesn't hide anything from you which most modern secular commentators would say has to be hidden. There's people being stoned, Hebrews killing Hebrews over their disagreement whether to follow Yahveh or not, nothing too graphic, but at least it doesn't act as if the Bible didn't say this happened.

Probably to my shame I have to say that I never watched all of the original Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston, it kinda bored me, but this one kept me until the very end.

If you liked the new Bible movies that have been sweeping the market lately, like The Nativity Story, The Last Inquiry and so forth, you will find yourself enjoying this movie.

So far from the truth; painful to watch

[strummingsam · 1/10 · 9 January 2007]

I appreciate the effort that the filmmakers wanted to depict the story of Moses and the exodus of Israel, and that the film helps viewers to put themselves into Moses' shoes and gain understanding of the intense burden laid upon Moses' shoulders. As excited as I was to see this film, I was greatly disappointed in the storyline. (I'll leave out the videography, special effects, and artistic ability in this review.) What is most disappointing is the historical inaccuracy of this movie and how it is so far from the historical accounts from Biblical texts. One of the overarching principles from the Bible is that *God* led His people out of Egypt, and He promised that He would take them to a land that is flowing with milk and honey. Not only did He give this promise, but He led His people in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He never left them; He always was visible to the Israelites. The movie, however, depicts a God who remains silent during the entire wandering through the desert. This movie changed the essence and theme of the Biblical text and instead depicts God as a silent, cruel, disciplinary void.

In addition, the depiction of Moses was just as wrong. Moses was known as a man of faith (why else would he be such a father-figure to Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, even that Moses is known as a man of great faith). However, the movie depicts him as a pragmatic, angry, insecure loner who despises the calling that God placed on his life. OK, I'll allow some creative freedom for the filmmakers in the Exodus story... but this is beyond creativity -- it is heresy.

Perfect remake of 1956 classic...

[mtr0118 · 7/10 · 10 July 2006]

This TV movie about Moses' life was very moving and 75% biblical comparing to the 1956 movie. The Red sea parting scene was very realistic and original even though Cecil b. DeMille's tactics still live on. It was very humorous to to see a Christ like appearance in Dougray Scott's portrayal of Moses,but he did a somewhat fair job.Mia Maestro was SO glamorous as Zipporah.My hat goes off to Robert Halmi and RHI for a great effort in this project of the Exodus.ABC should have this film on a regular run yearly to blend with DeMille's version. Hopefully it will be available soon on DVD.If you liked this film, you should watch also "In The Beginning" with Martin Landau and "Moses the Lawgiver" with Burt Lancaster.

Sacrilegious

[letoch · 1/10 · 10 April 2006]

I as a Christian am outraged after seeing just the first half of this picture. The film's website says they researched the movie before writing but I believe they forgot to consult the ultimate source THE BIBLE. I sat with two different versions of the Bible and could not find half of what happened or was said in this picture. It was like they made up what was not in the Bible and changed what was in the Bible to what they thought modern film viewers would want to see instead of the truth. I personally am too young to remember the 1950's Ten Commandments but it can't be any worse than this. I have written to the network and can only hope they publicly apologize for this travesty.

Review from an atheists point of view

[zone171 · 10/10 · 21 July 2007]

Despite being a nonbeliever I find religion very interesting. So I thought I would give this film a shot. It's not actually worth the rating I gave it, but I thought I would try to offset all the one star ratings it's been given by angry religious people. Anyway, to fully enjoy this movie I suggest doing what I did, namely read all the reviews of it while watching it. It's very interesting how the ratings range from top to bottom. Also the reason I'm writing this review is that it seem most if not all the other reviews are written by religious people who all compare it to the bible. Thats all good but viewing it as fiction, which the bible obviously is to me, might enable one to enjoy it differently. Well here it is: The acting range from laughable to pretty good 5 or 6 times. The special effects are nothing special these days, but acceptable, since they aren't really the drive of the movie. I quite liked the sets and the costumes, but I honestly don't know what they are supposed to look like historically so they might not be authentic. Overall what carried this movie was the story. Now the story was had a lot going for it interesting twists and turns. But unfortunately thats not enough. A really good story needs to not only have interesting exiting plots going on, it also needs to be believable. In case you don't know the story already I won't mention anything, I'll just say that having studied psychology and sociology for many years I found the behavior of many of the characters less realistic and the plot seems quite naive. So there... . enjoy 4 stars from me because I actually learned something.

Old Testament without Hollywood! "plastic"

[bryangl · 7/10 · 11 July 2021]

For me, the strength of this miniseries is that it attempts to look historically authentic rather than the very manufactured look of Hollywood in full flight, as seen in the famous 1956 version. If you seek eye-candy, you won't enjoy this. But if you want to see the story looking more like it did to the historical participants, this comes much closer.

Like many biblical films made for commercial purposes, it only approximates the Bible record, but for me, was close enough to provide enjoyable viewing. The acting is generally good, although from time to time the actors are forced to work with moments of weak dialog.

Cinematography is generally excellent, and set pieces like the departure from Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea are much better than I expected the budget would allow.

In summary, this is a more than acceptable remake, its great strength being its attempt to look real, avoiding the old Hollywood synthetic glamour.

I applaud the effort.....kind of.

[sternsf · 2/10 · 31 December 2007]

It is difficult to compete against classic greatness, but once you make that choice and the decision is in play, you need find the best and brightest resources to keep your product top drawer, and on the cutting edge of quality. If your intention is to aim for second or third (or fourth) best, why even try? It is with that, I wonder why this version of the Ten Commandments was written, produced, and aired. I would ask the producers, "What were you thinking? Were you endeavoring to create a projected deficit?" If perhaps the producers were thinking, "We want to examine this biblical story from another point of view..." Then I would say "OK, I watched the show, now what's the point of view?" The premise of this "possible point of view theory" eludes me. I can generally watch programs, and (right or wrong) at least get a sense of what the creators were trying to accomplish. Not so, here. I recognize names such as "Robert Halmi" (the producer) and I can associate his work with some eye catching product; Tin Man, Earthsea, Flash Gordon, Jason and the Argonauts. Low budget entertainment based on myth, history and comic book entertainment. A perfect genre for Sci-Fi Channel. So I still have to ask Robert Halmi..."What was the point of THIS Ten Commandments, What WERE you thinking?" …………FJS