Reviews & Ratings for
The Ten Commandments More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

27 reviews in total

---

15 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
a great silent spectacle, 12 May 2006

Author: dav07dan02 from spokane, usa

Director: Cecil B. Demille, Script: Jeaine Macpherson, Cast: Theodore Roberts (Moses), Charles de Rochfort (Rameses), Estelle Taylor (Miriam,sister of Moses), Julia Faye (wife of pharaoh), James Neill (Aaron), Edythe Chapman (Mrs. Martha Mc Tavish), Richard Dix (John,son), Rod La Rosque (Dan,son), Nita Naldi (Sally Lung,Eurasian)

Most people today have probably never seen this film. It is now available on the 50th anniversary set with the 1956 version. The 1956 version was an amazing movie but in many ways I prefer this one, Cecil B Demille's 1923 original. Many people will be surprised upon first viewing of this film. Demille uses a different approach thin in his 1956 remake. This film has two parts. The first part is set during the time of the exodus in the old testament. The Hebrew nation is enslaved by the Egyptians under the ruthless rule of the pharaoh Rameses. Moses as the chosen leader of the Jews frees his people from the Egyptians. God gives him the power to inflict plagues upon the Egyptians. He then leads his people on the great exodus across the desert to the Red Sea. God gives him the power to part the sea so the Jewish people can cross. Phaorah orders his army to go after the Jews across the parted Red Sea but God had the sea 'return to normal' so the army drowns.

Make no mistake, this film was a major production in its day and very high budget for its time. Demille uses very elaborate sets for this production. The exterior wall of the great Egyptian city is just like the one used in the 1956 version. Many extras were used in the making of this film. During the great exodus, there appears to be people for as far as the eye can see. You can see this great line of people spread out across the desert. Camels were seen during the exodus but as it turns out, camels were not in the middle east during that time period. The parting of the Red Sea in the 1956 version was considered an amazing special effect for its time. I was very curious as to how they would be able to pull this off in 1923! I was quite amazed!! The special effects used for the parting of the sea is just as good as the 56 perhaps better. One thing I really like about the special effects of this film is the wall of fire that Moses creates to keep the Egyptian army at bay. In the 56 version animation was used for the fire. In this version real fire was used using a double exposure technique that I thought was more impressive. Mr Demille was very loyal to his actors. He would use many of the same actors in a number of his films. The women who plays the part of pharaoh's wife and the boy that played his son are both involved in the 56 version as well as the film editor.

The film switches gears totally for the second half. We are now in modern times. It starts with a mother reading passages from the book of Exodus to her two sons. All the drama from the first half was simply her reading being acted out. The rest of the film is a morality tale between two sons. The mother and one son are deeply religious while the other son is a nonbeliever. He makes fun of his brother's silly beliefs so the mother kicks him out of the house for being a heathen. The believing son lives a modest life while the unbelieving son becomes very wealthy. He even gets the women they both like! He becomes a wealthy contractor employing his brother as a worker. However, the unbelieving brother's life will be filed with misfortune eventually leading to his death. The twist in the second half of the film makes for a interesting viewing experience. I like the contrast between ancient and modern times. Katherine Orrison in her commentary states that the modern sequence will probably seem more dated to the average viewer. I tend to agree. It is interesting to see how people lived and dressed during those times. The modern sequence is filmed mostly on location in San Francisco. It is cool to see how San Fran looked back then. The generation gap between the mother and her sons is very evident. This was the roaring 20's! Katherine Orrison gives an insightful commentary on both films but see seems to have a special fondness for this one. I can understand why.

---

13 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Commentary & Pristine Print Highlight 1923 Version!, 27 March 2006

Author: blue-7 from Salt Lake City

The exciting feature of the 50th Anniversary Editon of DeMille's THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is to be able to see the original 1923 version in a pristine print along with Katherine Orrison's illuminating commentary track. Previously only available on VHS tape with the poorly surviving colorized footage of the Exodus and Parting of the Red Sea (provided as a separate Extra on the DVD)used, it was difficult to realize just how beautifully done the silent epic was. Paramount has cleaned up the print and used only the better surviving black & white elements for this release. The beauty of the photography comes through with great clarity. Orrison's commentary is full of interesting insights as well as being enjoyable due to her enthusiasm about so many details. And Gaylord Carter's Wurlitzer Pipe Organ score is very impressive (as well as being a marvelous record of an organ score done by one who actually performed during the silent era)on this digital stereo recording. The 1956 remake looks and sounds great, as are the all of the special features for it, but this is exactly the same as the previous second edition of this title. I bought the new edition in order to see what they had done with the 1923 version -- and I certainly am impressed. Also, I love the packaging for this edition. Well worth updating as it is available at a very decent price.

---

10 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Interesting, & Occasionally Impressive, 21 September 2004
Author: Snow Leopard from Ohio

It's interesting just to watch DeMille's first, silent film version of "The Ten Commandments", and the picture itself is pretty interesting too. It is also occasionally impressive, sometimes with the kind of DeMille flourishes that one expects, sometimes with a satisfying dramatic turn. It's quite different in its conception from the more familiar 1950's version, and so direct comparisons are not always possible, yet it holds up well by itself anyway.

Rather than concentrating on the biblical story, as in the remake, here DeMille first tells an abbreviated version of the Moses/Exodus narrative, and then uses it as the thematic basis for a modern morality tale. There are many parallels between the two stories, and while the parallels are occasionally forced, they often work surprisingly well. The modern-day story is similar to many other films of the 1910's and 1920's, but it is interesting and it is told well.

Although DeMille is known for his lavish spectacles, he also knew how to create some more subtle effects when he wanted to. In the modern story, some of the developments are a bit contrived, but the characters generally ring true, and the story itself is worthwhile as well. While the lavish remake with color and sound is probably going to remain more well-known, this earlier version is well worth seeing, too.

---

14 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Thou shalt not give a stupid review., 22 October 2003
Author: sadie_thompson from United States

Oops, broke that one. All joking aside, this film is incredible. Astonishing effects for the early 20s, where you couldn't twist any digital domain to your whims. The parting of the Red Sea is pretty convincing, even if was Jello. (Can you imagine wading through Jello? Ick.)

This film is told in two parts, as we get to see Moses receiving the Ten Commandments from God in what looks like a Fourth of July celebration. One with good fireworks. Most people know that story--Moses goes to deliver the Commandments, only to find everyone involved in a massive orgy. Here de Mille is in his element. He did so many massive orgies that he should have copyrighted them. We see people making out (not having sex--that would be wrong), men licking wine off women's feet (that is wrong, by gum), and a huge number of people trying to climb up what looks like a curtain. Why they're doing this only de Mille knows. All we need is Gloria Swanson being pawed by a tiger to make everything perfect. As some viewers may not know, de Mille can show whatever sin and debauchery he wants, because the sinners are going to get it in the end. They're gonna get it bad. From the giddy Israelites and their golden calf we're transported to the modern day (1923), where a woman reads the Bible. She can't be the sinner. A son stands nearby, looking very noble and content. Can't be him. Then, we see the other son. He looks bored and disbelieving. We have a sinner! Oh, and he's a bad one. He dances on Sunday, he steals women from their intendeds, he's involved in dozens of dirty dealings, and he's dating an Oriental leper. Beg pardon? I guess she's just thrown in for fun.

Of course, all's well that ends well, and everything turns out okay. This movie is silent, so the acting is a bit in-your-face, and the characters are extreme, but hey. It's necessary--literacy wasn't rampant back then, so filmmakers had to make everything painfully obvious. Some people weren't able to read the title cards, and they'd be lost without the silent films' distinctive pantomime.

Side benefit--the version I have on video features a nifty soundtrack by that powerhouse of the movie palace, the Wurlitzer organ.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Great prologue, slow main feature, 28 December 2006

Author: pninson from Seattle, Washington

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Cecil B. DeMille's original silent version of the Ten Commandments is mostly a heavy-handed morality play set in 1923. The prologue, which runs just over 40 minutes, shows an abbreviated version of the Biblical story of the Exodus. Most of the dialogue is taken from the Bible. Despite the technical limitations of the era, it succeeds as a fast-paced spectacular. The parting of the Red Sea is just as awe-inspiring in its own way as in the remake, and it's always interesting to see how silent actors compensated for the lack of sound with facial expressions and exaggerated gestures. The musical score is fantastic and everything clips along at a nice pace. As with the remake, it's never subtle, but it's never boring, either.

I wish I could say the same about the main part of the feature. After Moses punishes the Hebrews for worshipping the golden calf, the film moves to the present day (1920s). A mother reads to her grown sons from the Bible. The two brothers are basically Goofus and Gallant. From here, everything is completely predictable.

It's well done so that one can overlook the lack of subtlety. DeMille has a very explicit religious message, and he's not above bludgeoning the viewer over the head with it. That was the style of the day, and the limitations of the silent film force a certain amount of overstatement.

However, unlike most films of this period, this one goes on far too long. It's about ninety minutes but seems far longer. The bad son goes out into the world, declaring that he's going to break all 10 Commandments! Naturally, he becomes a successful businessman... while his humble older brother (a carpenter, naturally) tries not to envy him or covet his wife. There's never any doubt about how it's all going to end: DeMille's message is that "the wages of sin is death", but he takes far too long to get there.

The complete film is about 135 minutes, which must have been an epic length for that era. I would have enjoyed it more if the modern story had been trimmed by about 15 minutes.

In his way, DeMille was the forerunner of Mel Gibson. Both are gifted filmmakers with devout religious beliefs --- short on subtlety, heavy on the bloodshed and headlong action. The 1956 remake of Ten Commandments is a spectacular example of epic film-making, and as this 1923 silent original is now included as an extra disc in the DVD, it's worth checking out. I can't imagine wanting to sit through the modern story again, though; I'll probably shut it off once Moses segues off screen.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Excuse me, gotta go and worship a Golden Calf!, 6 September 2001
Author: Glenn Andreiev (gandreiev@aol.com) from Huntington, NY

Whenever anybody says THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, we think of the fun, uplifting 1956 epic made by DeMille and starring Charleton Heston, Yul Brynner, etc. etc. Not too many people know that film is a remake of DeMille's own 1923 film of the same name. The 1923 version has so much zip to it, mainly because in it's 90 minute plus time, DeMille has to tell TWO stories. The first is the story of Moses. He has to lead the exodus from Egypt, part the Red Sea (an awesome scene done in early two-tone Technicolor) and slap some sense in his followers who wrongly decide to worship the Golden Calf. All that in 45 minutes. That means it spools out really, really fast. The rest of the film takes place in modern day San Francisco, where two brothers, one a hard working carpenter, the other, a wealthy but scheming architect battle. We know their grey haired mom is a good Christian, because she constantly carries around a Bible as big as a cinderblock!

Beautifully restored, witha great piano and organ score. This is an energetic silent well worth catching.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
A Fantastic New Print for a History Making Film, 11 July 2008
Author: John W Chance (Chance2000esl@yahoo.com) from San Francisco, California

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The 50th anniversary DVD of the 1956 'The Ten Commandments' includes Cecil B. DeMille's original 1923 version. The restored print of this history making silent film is simply amazing, so sharp and crystal clear with zero flickering. Furthermore, this version is the same, the reverse and also different from the 1956 version.

It's the same in that De Mille rebuilt the same set of Ramses' city -- larger than the towers built for D. W. Griffith's 'Intolerance' (1916)-- for the '56 version, used much of the same script, camera angles and other sets. It's the reverse, because as Katherine Orrison notes on the commentary track, if a shot was done from the right side in the '23 version, it was filmed from the left in the '56 version, and vice versa. She kids us not! She's written three books about "C.B."

It is different from the '56 version in two major ways. First, the story of Moses begins with him giving the ninth plague (killing the first born), and ends with him hurling the 10 Commandments down at the revellers worshipping the Golden Calf below Mount Sinai. Second, the movie then becomes a second story (the Biblical scenes are called "The Prologue"), taking place in San Francisco.

"The Modern Story" is about the brothers John, a carpenter (Richard Dix) and Danny, an architect (Rod La Roque) and their struggles with morality. Danny vows to break all ten commandments, and by the end of the movie, he has. Like Ramses drowned in the Red Sea, Danny, escaping to Mexico in his speed boat 'Defiance' also drowns smashed on a large rock that looks suspiciously like Mount Sinai. Note: Before Richard Dix went on to fame and success in sound movies (mostly for RKO), he starred in many other silent films-- check out his great performance in 'The Vanishing American' (1925) as an Indian.

Visually interesting throughout, the film even takes place on the construction site of the Catholic cathedral in Washington Square in San Francisco as it was being built. Actually shot in the outside construction elevator on the roof, you get to see a lot of the vista of 1923 San Francisco! Let's all meet at Washington Square for the 100th anniversary of this film!

Plus the whole movie really works. What sets and costumes! The parting of the Red Sea in this version is even better than the 1956 one!

I give it an 8.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
David Jeffers for SIFFblog.com, 5 January 2006

Author: rdjeffers from Seattle

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Sunday January 8, 4:00pm The Paramount Theater, Seattle

Countless slaves pull a gleaming white sphinx, inch-by-inch, across the desert sands. Brutalized by their cruel Egyptian masters, The Children of Israel toil before the monumental city gates of Pharaoh Rameses II. The opening scenes of Cecil B. DeMille's 1923 epic "The Ten Commandments" represent the historical spectacle of Hollywood's silent era at its grandest and most expressive. DeMille blended the intensely dramatic performance of his actors with the spectacular architecture of his sets in a way that seemed to bring the past to life for the movie going audience. His exhaustive research and striving for authenticity was limited only by his personal satisfaction. Of the roughly 2500 extras used one tenth were orthodox Jews from Los Angeles, many, recent immigrants who felt they were living the history of their ancestors. The flight from Egypt includes the added surprise of two-color Technicolor while the scenes of decadence as the Golden Calf is worshiped by an undulating mob are as vibrantly electric as any ever filmed. To be fair, it bears pointing out that the forty-five minute Ancient Egypt portion of "The Ten Commandments" is only a prologue to the modern story, which today seems dated and irrelevant. Two brothers, one good and one evil, alternately respect and defy the ancient laws of Moses and live with the consequences. The San Francisco setting may be of interest to anyone with ties to "the city by the bay", specifically the 1920's North Beach neighborhood, Saints Peter and Paul Church and Washington Square Park which are all prominently featured. Sexy Nita Naldi is also delightfully vampish as the heavy-lidded other woman draped in furs. The Jeanie Macpherson screenplay attempts to draw parallels between the story of Exodus and modern life, much more successfully accomplished in Michael Curtiz 1928 epic masterpiece "Noah's Ark", but the jazz age story can't hold a candle to the grandeur of the ancient world. DeMille's original does succeed if compared to the bloated, boringly over-detailed story and hammy acting of his 1956 remake. The 1923 prologue is concise, well paced and beautifully executed. The ancient Babylon of D. W. Griffith's 1916 spectacular "Intolerance" appears staged and remote when compared to a genuine sense of seeing and feeling the "hear and now" conjured up by DeMille's City of the Pharaoh. Hollywood produced progressively greater and more fantastic historical epics as the era drew to a close, including the MGM spectacle "Ben Hur" in 1925 and DeMille's "King of Kings" in 1927.

" … the spirit of the spectacle, and the joy taken in its own magic, was unique to the silent film." - William K. Everson

---

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
All this, and Jello too!, 12 May 2004
Author: Rich Drezen (Drezzilla)

I hope God doesn't smite me for the line above, but the effect is somewhat obvious. But as obvious as the Jello used for the Red Sea parting is, it cannot take away from how great this film really is. Now don't get me wrong, the 1956 version is unbelievable itself, but while looking at this one you get a sense of DeMille trying to tell us something about ourselves, our way of life, and of course, what we are doing wrong. The prologue itself is extremely quick. That could be because I saw the '56 version prior to this one. The rest of the story drags a little bit, but not too much, don't get me wrong this is a long movie (the package reads 146 minutes, it's really 136), but if you have the time you could make it through in one sitting. I'd recommend renting this movie (only if you can find it though) because it really is worth watching it and seeing how we are today and how we can make ourselves better by doing certain things a certain way. I can't put it in to words though, only this film can. It's an intriguing motion picture experience to behold. 8/10

---

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Church of the Poison Mind, 8 February 2009

Author: wes-connors from Earth

Cecil B. DeMille's Paramount EPIC "The Ten Commandments" tells the Old Testament's "Moses" story during its first hour. The "special effects" highlights are: Theodore Roberts (as Moses) parting the Red Sea, and the Biblical patriarch's thunderous receiving of God's commandments. The production is first rate throughout. After about fifty minutes of spectacle, the film switches to a "Modern Story" - wherein Mr. DeMille seeks to tell a morality story involving "The Ten Commandments".

For the main story (the more memorable Moses segments were a mere "prologue"), DeMille introduces the McTavish brothers - saintly carpenter Richard Dix (as John), and partying atheist Rod La Rocque (as Dan). While Mr. Dix stays home to read The Bible, with dear mother Edythe Chapman (as Martha McTavish), Mr. La Rocque breaks Commandments, with lovely Leatrice Joy (as Mary Leigh). Of course, Dix falls in love with Ms. Joy, after she becomes his brother's wife…

DeMille's morality tale is extremely heavy-handed, but nevertheless enticing, and expertly directed.

The "Biblical" and "Modern" story format recalls D.W. Griffith's superior "Intolerance" (1916). The all-star cast (it's 1923, remember) performs exceptionally, with La Rocque being seen in one of his finest performances. As any actor will tell you, La Rocque was halfway there, upon receiving the "bad brother" role, over Dix - and, La Rocque runs away with the film. His is a "Best Actor"-worthy performance. Nefarious Nita Naldi (as Sally Lung) leads a strong supporting cast.

All things considered, this one's a lot more fun than the 1956 re-make.

********* The Ten Commandments (11/23/23) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Rod La Rocque, Richard Dix, Leatrice Joy, Theodore Roberts

---

---

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history