|Page 1 of 7:||      |
|Index||70 reviews in total|
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 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.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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...
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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.
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,
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.
Biblical story developed in on a great scale for the 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 the 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 into Prince of Egypt. One time
grown-up Moses(Dougray Scott) embarks a supernatural mission, getting
the freedom for Hebrews. Then ,Moses retires to desert where meets
Jethro(Omar Sharif),marring him with his daughter Sefora. The stoic
Moses along with his brothers Aaron(Linus Roache) and Miriam(Susan
Lynch)confront against Pharaoh Ramses(Paul Rhys) and his fostered
brother(Naveen Andrews).Moses asks Pharaoh to liberate them but he
refuses, causing the Egyptian plagues : invasion of locusts,fogs
,epidemic,water become in blood and death of the first-born. Moses
takes charge of God's people and wrests 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 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,in trimming down for TV miniseries ,it makes lost most really spectacular 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(1969)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, Odyssea(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 is professionally directed by Robert Dornhelm , a mini-series expert based on historic personages : Spartacus,Archduke Rudolf and Mary Vetsera, Anne Frank,War and peace and even Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of N.Y..
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
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...
|Page 1 of 7:||      |
|External reviews||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|