IMDb > "The Ten Commandments" (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
"The Ten Commandments"
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratings
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot 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" More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]
Index 71 reviews in total 

3 out of 4 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?

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:

Why?

5/10
Author: Lars-Toralf Storstrand from Haugesund, Norway
9 October 2016

I can see that making a film of magnitude begs the use of some artistic license. However, when one is using artistic licence, why not stick to the minor things. Fillers for instance.

And why, when telling a story, won't one use the important things. If you want to cut certain areas, don't cut the vitals.

There were 3,5 million Jews leaving Egypt, plus their animals. The train of movement would be huge. This is a great place to use special effects.

I mean the special effects were good when it came to the crossing of the sea of Aqaba, but why not portray the immense amounts of people?

And why in the world try to say that Moshe didn't know where they were going? G-d explicitly told him where to take the people; back to Midian, to Chorev. They came there after three months, not years.

And G-d didn't let them walk the desert for to teach them anything, but to punish the original generation leaving Egypt, because they disobeyed him (Only Jehoshua and Kalev didn't). Even Moshe disobeyed G-d and that is why he at the end didn't get to cross into the promised land.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Cheap knock-off of an established 1956 classic!

2/10
Author: kcomp-68462 from Indiana
25 February 2016

This,clearly, is another example of the "Hollywood" mindset, trying to outdo an original movie, simply because of cgi graphics. Too often, movies are cranked out of the film industry under a host of, seemingly, underground, fly by night studio names, in a pathetic attempt to make money, simply by mesmerizing an ever-growing audience of drooling graphics-oriented imbeciles! This movie is no different. There is NO attempt to present another point of view, or shed new light on an age-old subject. These newer attempts at captivating audiences with a predominantly computer generated special effects, and then spicing it up with a "few actors" to round out the glorified cartoon,frankly...insults my intelligence. The fact that so many shallow people flock to this kind of drivel, and support these people, shows that we are digressing, as a species.

Give credit where credit is do, to a host of VERY talented film makers in 1956, who were able dazzle a far more sophisticated audience, with real story, dialogue, actors and several AMAZING special effects, that did NOT require some dweeb at a computer, cranking it out! If the original movie is a masterpiece, which this one clearly was, than why attempt to make a cheap copy with NO socially redeeming value?

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Too much fiction and distortion of Bible story

5/10
Author: SimonJack from United States
23 September 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie, "The Ten Commandments" is from a TV mini-series of 2006. The size of scale and use of special effects are pluses, although the CGI was overdone for the bottom of the Red Sea. The film has just half of the 10 plagues, and glances over most of these – the waters turning to blood, frogs, locusts, fiery hail, and death of the first-born.

After the Red Sea crossing and destruction of Pharaoh's army, the film has only three more signs of God's power. The first is Moses sweetening poisoned water. The second is his striking a rock to bring forth water, but it eliminates the significant second strike by Moses that was his sign of doubt for which God would deny him entry into the Promised Land. The third is the appearance of manna in strange circles on the ground, with no name for it or explanation beforehand.

The film has an account of the Ten Commandments, the making of a golden calf, and the killing of the dissidents' families. It shows the Israelites carrying the body of Joseph out of Egypt to be buried in the Promised Land. It gives a glimpse of the Ark of the Covenant, but doesn't explain what it is. The film leaves out the earthquake that swallows up Dathan and other dissident leaders. It glosses over the Passover, showing only the marking of Israelite homes with lamb's blood on the door posts. And it omits a crucial event and major aspect of the exodus. That was the scouting of the Promised Land for 40 days by young men from the 12 tribes. They returned with fruit of the land, but 10 of the 12 said they could not hope to conquer the land.

We can grant license to all films with their imagined accounts of Moses growing up in a royal household in Egypt. The entire story of the birth and childhood of Moses covers a mere 10 verses in the Bible (Ex. 2: 1- 10). Nothing is said of his upbringing except that after his weening, he was brought up by Pharaoh's daughter, Bithiah, as her own son. We learn of the names of his parents, Amram and Jochebed, in Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59. Bithiah's name doesn't appear until First Chronicles 4:17. Pharaoh banished her for having brought an Israelite into the house of Pharaoh, pretending him to be her own. By tradition, Bithiah left with Moses on the exodus. She was part of the "mixed multitude."

The next five verses of the Book of Exodus (2:11-16), tell of Moses killing an Egyptian and fleeing to Midian. The last 10 verses of Exodus cover more than 50 years of Moses' life. Moses was 120 years old when he died (Deuteronomy 34:7), which was 40 years after the start of the exodus. He marries Zipporah, eldest daughter of Jethro; their son, Gershom, is born; and Moses shepherds the flocks of his father-in-law. God's calling of Moses from the burning bush takes up the next four chapters of Exodus, 3-6. The next six chapters (7-12) cover Moses and Aaron confronting Pharaoh, the 10 plagues and the institution of the Passover.

The flight from Egypt begins with Ex. 12:33. The last 28 chapters of Exodus cover the Ten Commandments, the grumbling and rebellion of the people against Moses and God, the Ark of the Covenant, and the wandering in the desert. After the 10 plagues, God gave more than two dozen signs of his power to the people in their flight from Egypt. Some of this is repeated, more events occur and more details are provided in the next three books of the Bible. At the end of Deuteronomy, the Israelites reach the Promised Land. Moses sees it from atop a mountain, but is not allowed to cross the Jordon River. He dies and is buried there. No one knows the location of his grave.

This 2006 TV film is very heavy with dialog and melodrama. Dougray Scott plays Moses as an angry man, believing in God and his power, but lacking connection to the God of his fathers – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. His character is unlike Moses as he describes himself in the Bible – "not eloquent …slow of speech and of tongue" (Ex. 4:10). The film seems heavily weighted on portraying God as vengeful and hard, rather than as impatient and angry because of the unfaithfulness of the people, and their rebellion in the face of all the signs he has given them. It was due to their lack of faith and trust just a few months after leaving Egypt when they scouted the Promised Land, that the people were condemned to wander for 40 years in the desert – until all those over age 20 had died. But this film omits this major event, which is crucial to the Bible lesson.

One very curious account is a fictitious couple who commit adultery and are then stoned to death. This distraction is woven throughout the exodus and takes up considerable film time. But, it has no bearing on the exodus, and no grounding in scripture. Another lengthy piece of fiction is the training of the Israelites for combat. By the end, we see warriors with shields, spears, swords and big bows.

This version of Moses and the exodus has too much fiction that detracts from the story. Its focus is not on a God who repeatedly forgives the people and then disciplines them for their unfaithfulness, which is the tenor of the Bible accounts. The character of Moses seems quite different from scripture. The film has a scale of the immensity of the exodus and has good special effects, but it skips far too many details and events. It drags on far too long with made-up material.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

waste of money renting this garbage

1/10
Author: giomanombre from Canada
15 April 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This has been one of the worst biblical adaptation movies I have ever seen, if not the worst. If you are a serious believer and looking to build a spiritual library out of 'visual bible' DVD components, then look away from this DVD. As other posters have said (and I now have to consider coming on here before I waste money on movies) this movie is not actually based on the bible - some scenes are really added on that don't belong there.

- example, Moses killing an Egytpian because he was going to rape someone's wife, and then that same husband committing adultery and murdering the woman's husband...is not found in the bible.

They essentially make their own movie that has no relationship to accurate historical biblical accounts. I'm going to make a mental note of the director/producer and will avoid renting or viewing any other movies from them that are biblically based. What a heresy.

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:

Not quite as good cinematography as Cecil's, but excellent revelation!

Author: justdad from United States
27 January 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had never really thought of the mindset a slave would have & what kind of paradigm shift would have to take place to get one out of a slavery mindset... or a wilderness mindset for that matter. I never really thought about how the Israelites came out of Egypt, but were so infused with Egypt that they had to wander all that time not to find the Promised land, but to prepare them to fight for what was rightfully theirs. There was so much revelation & insight in this movie, it really has helped me see how I still have some Egyptian thinking in me that needs worked out!

I'm a fanatic about continuity, costumes, sets etc. So much so that it takes a really good movie to take me in & not be in analytical mode about how it was made. This movie took me in lock, stock & barrel.

Even though I've read the story a hundred times, this was a fresh, beautifully done film.

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?

5 out of 9 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 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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