IMDb > "The Ten Commandments" (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
"The Ten Commandments" More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 7: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
Index 69 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 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?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Sub-par

3/10
Author: skyran from United States
11 April 2006

Sticks to the book, but is still way outclassed by the classic. I find the characters hard to follow and not as well-developed as those from the classic. Moses seems to lack necessary skills as a leader, and some moments that could be very powerful are presented in a way that just makes them seem immature and childish. I don't find the motives for actions very well explained or presented in a way by which viewers can understand and sympathize with the characters. Some of the subplots are just confusing, and it's hard to figure out who some of the characters are. I suppose the idea of Moses as a "tortured soul" is a noble thing to try to portray, but quite honestly, it gets old after four hours. Because I have a hard time identifying with any main characters, the show doesn't hold my attention nearly so well as the good old classic does year after year.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

TEN Comandements aka Moses's Biography

Author: alcher-1 from Canada
10 April 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

At the end Moses dies and is not buried. Goes to heaven in a pillar of smoke without entering the Holly Land. That is why there is no grave found for him. But there is the bones of Josef still existing now.This remake of the original movie is the personal depiction of the producer himself. Ther are a few different views from the original. The plot hurries fast forward and omits a number of occurrences. You have to know the story to follow the whole movie. To much brutality in depiction of violence. The parting of the sea to graphic and detailed. Acting a bit primitive and studentish. Flow of the storie scetchie. It looks like they cut a whole lot of scenes. Parts missing. Costume not authentic, like on a budget. For those people watching that didn't know the script and didn't see the first one , it is a good show. Vitally

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 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 6 people found the following review useful:

This was horrible

1/10
Author: firedragon19852002 from United States
6 December 2006

The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie!

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 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 8 people found the following review useful:

Review from an atheists point of view

10/10
Author: zone171
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 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 8 people found the following review useful:

Makes DeMille Look Good by Comparison

3/10
Author: mgconlan-1 from United States
11 April 2006

I'm basing this comment on the first half only since the second half hasn't been shown yet. What a piece of cheese! I didn't think ANYBODY was capable of making Cecil B. DeMille look like a subtle director, but Robert Dornhelm is making DeMille look like Wyler, Welles or Kubrick by comparison. Admittedly Ron Hutchinson's dementedly silly script isn't helping him much. About the one really creative aspect of this film is its treatment of Ramses, who in Hutchinson's script seems to combine the worst aspects of George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein — and even there Paul Rhys is all too obviously copying Yul Brynner's mannerisms in the role (and in "The King and I"), though he's slighter and decidedly nellier. I half expected him to say, "Not the women and children too! If the women go, who'll help me put on my eyeliner?" And just out of curiosity, did ALL upper-class Egyptian males, no matter how old (or young) they were, have to shave their heads in this period? DeMille's FIRST "Ten Commandments" — the silent one from 1923 — remains the best.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

A True Flop!

3/10
Author: OzSekhmet from Australia
18 April 2006

True Religion hits the spot, hey? Poor ole Moses never has a clue in this clunker, even when he's chucking rocks at his best mate and best mate's "friend" who have committed adultery and murder. And then after he orders the faithful to massacre those who worshipped the Golden Calf, he potters off like a constipated monkey, muttering, "But I was only taking orders..." A mass-murderer is a mass murderer, whether he kills in the name of Hitler, Stalin or I AM WHO I AM!!! And before you accuse me of anti-semitism, think again. I rate Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" (shown here on "Good" Friday as "The Ten Commandments" was shown on Sunday/Monday) as one of the most vilely anti-semitic crap-fests I've ever seen!

Was the above review useful to you?


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

Add another review


Related Links

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