IMDb > The Ten Commandments (2006) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Ten Commandments
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Ten Commandments (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
Index 70 reviews in total 

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

painful painful painful

1/10
Author: scor24pio from United States
10 April 2006

if you're a fan of the original ten commandments, this movie will make you weep inside. granted, i'm only about 1/2 hour into it currently, but it's so painful, i felt it was my duty to warn away real ten commandments fans before they are subjected to this bastardization. i didn't think it was possible to actually make the special effects worse than they were in 1950s when the original was shot, but this 2006 remake proves me wrong. i can forgive some lame special effects, but the craptastic dialogue, melodramatic lifetime movie-style schlockiness, and the stilted we-are-wax-figures-come-to-life acting makes me hope they'll rewrite the plot and drown moses in the red sea.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: eliz7212-1 from United States
13 April 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

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

4/10
Author: edwagreen from United States
27 May 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Not great, but includes some items I'd not seen done before

5/10
Author: rabb_eye from United States
14 April 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As some have mentioned, the second half of the miniseries DOES get pretty violent. But, the attack on the Amalekites and the slaughter of those who were not "on the Lord's side," were things that really happened! You don't often see those in re-tellings of the Exodus story! It had me scrambling for my Bible on a few occasions! And, yes, the stoning of the adulterers is a bit anachronistic, since the provision for stoning had not been instituted in the Law yet.

I had just watched DeMille's 1923 silent Ten Commandments before I slogged through my taped version of this one. DeMille makes a brief reference to that slaughter of 3,000 just as the film shifts to the "modern" era, though he doesn't depict it.

However, I was impressed by how they sort of upheld DeMille's 1923 vision, to say that the Ten Commandments are good laws for all times and cultures. The difference is that instead of showing the laws being broken in the modern 1920's, Hallmark showed them being broken in the desert, by the Israelites. In both cases, though, it bears out that overarching theme--God's Law is good! Of course, DeMille will take it a step further by alluding to the grace expressed to sinners by Jesus--but that was not the "point" of the 1956 version or this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

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

2/10
Author: sternsf from United States
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

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Oh Leave it to Hollywood

1/10
Author: Brandy-28 from Los Angeles
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

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

One word: Disappointing

2/10
Author: koolcaz from Australia
16 April 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I realise it's very hard to live up to the first The 10 Commandments movie (which was grandiose and personally not a Charleton Heston fan) but wow...this movie/mini-series was disappointing. Even the animated The Prince of Egypt was better.

The one thing that threw me off was Ramses. Compared to Yul Brynner's version, Paul Rhys's version just seemed so weak and un-Pharoh like. The acting really wasn't that great. For a modern adaptation, I was expecting something better. It just didn't look as stunning visually as the first one. I guess they were running on a tight budget or something. There's an occasional voice-over narrator which I found strange and unnecessary. It also broke up the flow of the story. And um...God's voice/lines were kinda weird.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Waste of Time

2/10
Author: vin720 from United States
14 April 2006

This movie could have had a lot of potential. Certainly with today's technology, one would expect real special effects. But movies are not made with special effects alone, of course acting is needed. This film lacked both!

First, let me say to those who are upset with this not following the bible: why can't a movie take artistic license? If you want to know about the story of Moses, read the bible. I have seen very few movies that follow a true story fact by fact. Look at of movie from its artistic quailities.

In viewing this movie, you will inevitably compare it to the 1956 version. It fails miserably in that. Heston and Brenner had PRESENCE. They became their roles. You don't see this here.

Even if you don't compare, standing on it's own, this movie to too rushed. Parts where a scene should be developed, it does not. It becomes boring.

My advice: skip this and watch the other. As campy as the other is, it's far and away the better movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Not good, but not bad either

6/10
Author: drama_queen_casper from United States
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Good Special Effects, but still misses the mark

5/10
Author: smwhitfie from United States
12 April 2006

This was a mess. The continuity was a mess -half the actors spoke with English accents, King Herod looked like he never saw the sun, and the darkest person was Naveen Andrews who, while a fine actor, seemed out of place. Come on. Finally, out of all the great actors with tremendous voices, (James Earl Jones), the voice of God sounded like the local pizza delivery guy.

One good thing was the special effects and showing the darker side of the story. And the actors though, a little overly dramatic at times, did a pretty good job.

I haven't seen the original in a while, but will check it out this week 2 compare.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 2 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history